60 Minutes degree mill story

Theoretically it is possible that she may have believed what Hamilton told her. Quoted from an article on CHEA's site:

"Based on the survey, few members of the public are aware that higher education accreditation is a private, voluntary system. When asked who accredits colleges and universities, the largest group of respondents (37 percent) said they did not know. The next largest group (28 percent) identified government (federal, state, or local). Only 12 percent of all respondents said private organizations are responsible for accrediting colleges and universities. "

Here's a link to the full article:

http://www.chea.org/Research/president-letters/99-07-16.cfm

If fully 65% of the public doesn't have a clue about accreditation then it's entirely possible that a single government employee may not have known either. Of course she should have suspected something considering the amount of course work that was not required. But it wouldn't be the first time somebody fell for something that sounded too good to be true simply because they wanted so badly to believe it was true. People also fall for seemingly obvious scams out of sheer greed, so that may have been a factor as well.

Unless of course we all want to believe that the only people working in government jobs are not only brilliant but also bursting with common sense and never, ever get greedy.

Kit

 

Kit,

Callahan was at the upper tier of the government service and resposnible for IT. This level of office requires that you demonstrate many of the attributes you make in jest in the application and further, to provide examples. These folks are supposed to be top tier. I would be the first to say that accreditation is confusing in the US and is counterintuitive. However, there are way too many educational programs within the DC area for folks at the SES level for me to think that she did not know Hamilton was suspect. She picked an obscure "school" in one of the least populated states in the US. I suspect this was by design. And even as ignorant as I was a year ago I still evaluated my professor's credentials and anticipated at least a level of effort on par with my undergraduate degree. The fact that she never mentioned her academic credentials past her associates when in front of congress belies her claim of ignorance. Your comment on greed may be close but I believe it was more egocentric than anything else since even at the furthest reaches of salaries, government employees are limited to the mid six figures. Hardly a considerable sum in light of the commercial environment.

 

Kit:

It isn't Callahan's lack of understanding about accreditation. It is her contention that she thought the degrees were legitimate. This despite the utter nothingness she had to produce for the degrees. This isn't naivete; it is lying.

At first, I couldn't believe she'd agree to an on-camera interview. But when I saw how CBS treated her as a victim, it became clear.

 

Rich: "This despite the utter nothingness [Callahan] had to produce for the degrees."

John:
Callahan writes, in a short essay that we added as an appendix to the degree mills book: "I know Hamilton is a diploma mill, and its degrees are worthless. Ironically, my Hamilton doctoral dissertation proved useful to someone. The Department of Labor used it as the framework for its E-Government Strategy, which it published two years after my doctoral work, and is still using it as of mid-2004."

We did confirm that with the Dept. of Labor, where she was once Deputy Chief Information Officer.

 

An email I sent to CBS's 60 Minutes program:

----- Original Message -----
From: Gregg L. DesElms <email address here>
To: CBS 60 Minutes Wednesday <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, November 12, 2004 9:07 PM
Subj: About your "Diplomas for Sale" broadcast on Wednesday evening

I watched your piece, "Diplomas for Sale," on Wednesday evening. It was, as usual, quite good; but the impression with which you left the viewer was somewhat misleading regarding, and potentially quite harmful to, the world's legitimate online degree-granting institutions and their seemingly countless students.

Though I believe you didn't mean to, you nevertheless left the viewer with the mistaken impression that the problem is online degrees, categorically. On the contrary, the problem is that diploma mills -- which are not, by any means, a new phenomena, and have been around for as long as anyone living or dead can remember -- have simply found, in the Internet's Worldwide Web, a new place to both advertise and operate. Before the advent of the Web, advertising for such nefarious operations was confined to the backs of matchbook covers, to interior overhead signage in city buses, or to small ads in the backs of vertical market or affinity interest magazines and other publications. Now that they've found the Web, however, diploma mills have cast a dark cloud over legitimate online (and other types of distance learning) degree programs everywhere. And your program not only did little to make the differentiation, but it further confused the situation.

Nearly all of the biggest, most legitimate and well-respected universities in this country -- ne, in the world -- now have either fully- or largely-online degree programs. Distance education diplomas from such insitutions of higher learning are identical to, and the work required to earn them every bit as rigorous, as their brick-and-mortar counterparts; and, therefore, such diplomas deserve the exact same respect.

American consumers, however, are inadequately informed about how accreditation truly works. When talking about the Hamilton University web site in your story on Wednesday evening, you pointed-out the fake school's apparent accreditation; how authentic and legitimate said accreditation appeared (though it was not); and how easily said fake accreditation fooled people... people like Laura Callahan, for example (who, by the way, is well-known to the distance/online learning community, which by and large finds her story not credible... but I digress).

Diploma mills have made fake accreditation claims since their beginning. They're scammers, after all... and that's what scammers do. As in past decades, whether the seller's advertisement is on the back of a matchbook cover or displayed in a web browser, it is and has always been the buyer's responsibility to determine if the seller's claims are legitimate. The time-worn bromide "caveat emptor" (let the buyer beware) is, after all, something parents have been including in their childrens' upbringings since time immemorial. The advent of the Internet and its Worldwide Web does nothing to diminish that sage wisdom.

Though the Internet has allowed diploma mills to proliferate and to more easily rip off people like Laura Callahan (if, in fact, it's even fair to say that she was actually ripped-off rather than was a willing participant in an attempt to deceive, as I have always believed was true about her), that very same Internet also makes it easier than ever for the Laura Callahans of the world to spot diploma mills before they can do them harm. A quick visit to the web site of the U.S. Department of Education's Council for Higher Education Accreditation (CHEA) at:

• http://www.chea.org/institutions/search.cfm

would have permitted Ms Callahan to find out in just seconds -- and from the nation's ultimately authoritative resource on the matter -- if Hamilton's claims of accreditation were bona fide. Less than a minute on the CHEA web site could have saved Ms Callahan $7,000... and her job and reputation, as well.

Your story missed all of that and, by so doing, accomplished at least two very potentially harmful things:

• 1) You left the viewer with the impression that online degrees are categorically bogus. People who saw your piece may now believe, wrongly, that anyone with an online degree is a faker. One of the ongoing problems in the distance education world is that many human resource (HR) managers have not kept-up with the times and mistakenly believe that online degrees are substandard. Some HR personnel routinely discard the resumes of perfectly fine candidates simply because they list such degrees... even though they are every bit as legitimate as ones earned in a physical classrom at the very same educational institutions whose degrees said HR personnel typically consider legitimate. Your story, sadly, will now make that problem even worse.
  
  2) You failed to use the power of your program to educate America's masses about how accreditation really works and, by so doing, left open the door for even more of the world's Laura Callahans to be duped. It wouldn't have used-up even two minutes of your story's airtime to explain in a few sentences that there are fake accreditors and real ones; and that the real ones are all listed on the CHEA web site. Accreditation is easy to understand but, for some reason, very few college students know a thing about it... hence the reason diploma mills have been so successful. In less than two minutes you could have educated millions of them and, by so doing, at once helped them to see that not all online diplomas are diploma mill diplomas; and given them a powerful tool to quickly determine the difference.

I love 60 Minutes... always have; and I love Vicky Mabry's work, too... it's consistently outstanding and speaks for itself. But, tragically, in some ways you missed the real story, here...

...and, in the process, did a huge disservice, howsoever unintentionally, to many.


_____________________________
Gregg L. DesElms
email address here

 

I should have been more specific, limiting my comment to the bachelor's and master's degrees for which, according to Callahan, she had only to write a 2,000-word essay (plus her previous college work and credit for life/work experience).

During the piece, Callahan didn't comment on the length/depth of her doctoral dissertation. I have even less insight to that.

 

please

[Bullet/Douglas exchange removed by moderator. Read Chip's "Important" message at the top of the listings.]

 

Re: please

[Bullet/Douglas exchange removed by moderator. Read Chip's "Important" message at the top of the listings.]

 

talking out of both sides of your mouth

[Bullet/Douglas exchange removed by moderator. Read Chip's "Important" message at the top of the listings.]

 

Re: talking out of both sides of your mouth

[Bullet/Douglas exchange removed by moderator. Read Chip's "Important" message at the top of the listings.]

 

do I have to "master" rich?

[Bullet/Douglas exchange removed by moderator. Read Chip's "Important" message at the top of the listings.]

 

Re: do I have to "master" rich?

[Bullet/Douglas exchange removed by moderator. Read Chip's "Important" message at the top of the listings.]

 

ahhhh such wit.

[Bullet/Douglas exchange removed by moderator. Read Chip's "Important" message at the top of the listings.]

 

Re: ahhhh such wit.

Is there a reason you are so antagonistic toward Rich?

 

is there a reason

Dave,


Is there a reason, why you ask me for a reason? Do I need a reason? Rich has not asked me for a reason, but he did offer a "hint"........he insinuated that I might be a shill (popular defense tactic). I like to think that the infamous "distress code word"- DEGREE MILL SHILL will bring in re-enforcements and by golly it's working.
What would the regulars on Degree Info be reduced to if they had their favorite "wordy-word-word" taken away? Any ideas, richie?

Rich and I are having fun taking some "pokes" at one another and both of us are trying to have the last word and be as cute as possible along the way.

Isn't rich a grown man? Can't I debate with rich without the army stepping in?

Besides, rich and I are buddies and it can't be denied that Rich is an expert on the subject of Distance Learning, his words have meaning and carry weight not mine.

(Rich); As a an expert and a person that lots of us take his word, he should know better than to pass off commentaries that carry weight, without taking the time that John Bear does to verify things. Good Lord knows it's so easy to just say everyone is a fake or must have known.

Me; I am not bound by being a well known and respected leader in the Distance Education world like Rich is. Richie-poo made his bed now he gets to sleep in it.

 

I'm not quite sure why my post was removed. I don't think I said anything about "bullet" personally--I don't know him. Perhaps locking the thread in such cases would be better, I don't know. But I'm positive I didn't violate the TOS.

 

Re: is there a reason

OK. So, the anger is aimed at any one who disagrees or questions you. Thanks for your response. It has been helpful.

 

One other thing: I wish the moderators would deal with the people that START this nonsense. It was "bullet" that started it. I was just talking about Callahan.

 

you r welcome!

Glad to be of service, Dave!

 

right on

Richie,


Be nice. I started it, but you continued it. So the one of us that be without sin cast the first stone (ziiiiiip.........big stone leaves Richies hand and zips past my head). Let's shake cyber-hands and be friends again. O-TAY?

Big hug for you rich (o.k. and Dave) there is enough violence in this world already.

Shazam!







P.D. I wish that the moderators would do something about the people that "CONTINUE" this none-sense.