Legitimacy of an unaccredited University!!!!

Gabe · May 2, 2004

Re: Re: Question?

Originally posted by BillDayson
Because they think that the school offers valuable education? Not all of us have a degree objective.

Mr. Dayson, I agree fully, and have sought out nontraditional degree and nondegree opportunities myself, mostly because I enjoy learning. Sometimes it worries me at how narrow and strident some of the posters are on this board, implying or stating directly that unaccredited degree programs are worthless. They are not, except from the perspective of business or government, which rely on credentials. Yes, we live in a credential society, and yes, we are a nation of strangers, relying more and more on "two pictures ID's." No matter if a college is accredited or not, let's not forget that it is the human interchange that forms the heart of teaching and learning.
My grandpa wasn't a certified teacher, but I learned so much from him and with him. Let's be careful not to invest too strongly or narrowly in agency accreditation in acknowledging human learning, and emphasize the quality of the teacher-student relationship, even in--especially in--higher education.
Gabe
Click to expand...

Rich Douglas · May 2, 2004

Re: Re: Re: Question?

Originally posted by Gabe
[Sometimes it worries me at how narrow and strident some of the posters are on this board, implying or stating directly that unaccredited degree programs are worthless.

Almost no one actually says this. I certainly don't. My research clearly demonstrates the utility of unaccredited degrees for employment purposes. This is a common statement made by critics of this board, and it is wrong.

They are not, except from the perspective of business or government, which rely on credentials. Yes, we live in a credential society, and yes, we are a nation of strangers, relying more and more on "two pictures ID's." No matter if a college is accredited or not, let's not forget that it is the human interchange that forms the heart of teaching and learning.
My grandpa wasn't a certified teacher, but I learned so much from him and with him. Let's be careful not to invest too strongly or narrowly in agency accreditation in acknowledging human learning, and emphasize the quality of the teacher-student relationship, even in--especially in--higher education.
Gabe
Click to expand...

An education is one thing, a degree another. One might gain an education from an unaccredited school, but there is no denying the more-limited utility of the degree.

Please don't confuse the difference between the educative and credentialing functions of universities. They are quite different, especially in unaccredited schools.

Chip · May 2, 2004

Originally posted by North

(snip)
Personally, I think it would be possible to regulate (accredit) schools out of the department of education of each state. This process would be cheaper for the schools.

(snip)

Bob Jones University, Pensacola Christian University are examples frequently quoted of unaccredited schools with quality programs. BJU produces top quality grads in a number of fields who perform well or are accepted to top grad schools. BJU has a reputation for quality. Even acceptable in Oregon However, there are still problems such as the fact being unaccredited means that their grads may not be able to sit for certain kinds of licensure in certain states. Probably could not get hired where I work (no UnA degrees allowed).

North
Click to expand...

in principle I'm in agreement that states could provide state-based accreditation. However, in practice, I don't think this would work very well... California is a good example. The rules on the books make California approval look like it's equivalent to RA in rigor, but it simply isn't. And that's in significant part because the state doesn't have the budget to do any sort of meaningful enforcement or quality control. And this in a state that is supposedly one of the stronger ones for educational oversight. The other problem is consistency. When you have states like Montana that supposedly have good laws on the books, but don't enforce them, or states like Hawaii that have excellent enforcement, but laws with very few teeth, it's hard to imagine how you'd get any decent consistency.

As for Bob Jones, I agree that, except for their conservative leanings that make Pat Buchanan look like a flaming liberal, they are extremely well regarded. I'd be willing to wager that in most circumstances, there is probably an exception to normal accreditation requirements for students that have BJU degrees, simply because the school is known by virtually everyone in academia as an outstanding program that (legitimately) hasn't pursued accreditation for religious/political reasons. But I would also say that they are the exception that proves the rule. There are, in my book, probably at least a half-dozen, maybe a dozen unaccredited DL programs that I would consider legitimate, good-faith efforts. But there are at least 300 more that I'd put in the "unwonderful" category or worse. It's unfortunate for the tiny number of legit programs, but those that choose not to pursue an accreditation track are pretty much going to have to live with being lumped in with the the 97% (by my gross math above, numbers not guaranteed) of programs that aren't so well-intentioned.

adireynolds · May 2, 2004

Originally posted by Rich Douglas

It's "Rich."

I'm told by Union they've sent another copy of my dissertation to UMI.

I'm wrapping up a draft article on my dissertation findings for a journal. If accepted, I'll let you know where it is published.
Click to expand...

Thanks, Rich. I have your UMI abstract bookmarked, and have been checking it every now and again -- I've planned on ordering a copy all along.

Good luck with the article submission -- my fingers are crossed!

Gabe · May 2, 2004

Re: Re: Re: Re: Question?

Originally posted by Rich Douglas

An education is one thing, a degree another. One might gain an education from an unaccredited school, but there is no denying the more-limited utility of the degree.

Please don't confuse the difference between the educative and credentialing functions of universities. They are quite different, especially in unaccredited schools.
Click to expand...

Mr. Douglas, we agree, but my point is perhaps more subtle: A degree is, like the awards given by the Wizard of Oz, a document implying some level of achievement. Colleges give them all the time, and yes, unaccredited schools' degrees are less sell-able. But there is the other dimension--of being educated--that is, as you point out, different from the credentialing function of a university. My point is that we are so consumed with the credentialing (sell-able) function of our universities that the educative function is almost invisible. Whether we speak of traditional or nontraditional colleges, our higher education system is driven not by achievement (education) but by money and privilege. Where else in the world today would the most famous Yale University graduate say at his commencement address, "Not bad for a 'C' student?!"
Where else in the world could such an inarticulate student not only receive a degree from an accredited university, but a degree from each of the two most prestigious universities in America? In the final analysis, all American institutions are--or have become in order to survive--diploma mills. To me, the big problem in this discussion board is that posters conveniently <ignore> the mills that service the fortunate (like Yale and Harvard), while attacking the mills that attempt to serve the hopeful poor who take out student loans to achieve respectibility. (Look at the recent Annenberg Foundation studies to see what I'm talking about.) I'm not advocating we allow diploma mills to continue unexamined. But let's look at <all> the mills out there, not just those that attempt to serve poor and minority Americans with questionable and questioned Ph.D degrees.
Gabe

Thorsen · May 2, 2004

I was a resident of Pensacola for 32 years and was amazed to find out that PCC is not accredited after reading this thread. For those of you not familiar with Pensacola Christian College, it is a large university pretty much in the center of the Greater Pensacola Area. Additionally, at least locally, it holds a solid reputation as a demanding place of higher education.

From what I have been able to find out since reading this thread, it appears that PCC does not subscribe to accreditation for fear that the State or Federal government may then have a right to determine the course curriculum. UInfortunately this lack of accreditation appears to have a definite downside to the graduates of this school. Although this PCC graduate's website is now down, I managed to find the following in the cache file:

I am a graduate of PCC. Since graduating, I've decided to return to college. When I started sending out applications to several schools in more than one state, absolutely NO accredited college or university would accept my credits. I followed the steps above, getting the letters sent from PCC, having the phone calls placed. All were worth nothing to the institution(s) that I applied at. I followed the process as far as it could be taken. After several years of hard work at PCC, my degree is worth nothing in the eyes of every accredited college and university I've tried to transfer credit to. I have to start at square one just like every other freshman entering the school.

In my opinion, the recruiters and staff at PCC misled me to believe that it would not be difficult to get my credits to transfer to an accredited institution. This has hardly been the case. While they seem to have curbed their recruitment methods a bit and are much more forthright in this regard, it is too late for those of us who have credits and degrees that are now worthless in the eyes of the schools we want to transfer credit to, not to mention many of the businesses we may wish to work at. I have spoken with adults who have Bachelor degrees from PCC and cannot find a graduate school that will accept their credits. I have also spoken with others who are short of a degree from PCC, but who still have to start all over at other accredited schools that will not recognize credits from PCC.

I hope to spare someone else the heartache of lost time and money that I have experienced. If you're a prospective student of PCC, please do some research. And certainly don't let glossy photos of smiling students, palm trees and white beaches figure into your decision: Much is not as it appears to be.

If you're a current student at PCC, it's not too late to reevaluate. Still place some calls and find out what you can expect to receive for your time at PCC. If you're convinced that you need to transfer, let nothing stop you: not guilt, not fear. Don't believe that you will necessarily be "out of God's will" for transferring, even though you may hear that a lot. God works in various ways, and this decision is between you and God.

Whatever your situation, you owe it to yourself as well as anyone else who may be involved in financing your schooling to educate yourself about the issue of accreditation. I promise you, it will be time well spent.
Click to expand...

Accreditation evidently matters far more than some would have you think. While I admit the above is anecdotal, I can see the same scenario being repeated over and over again for unfortunate graduates of this very fine school who choose to go into some other field besides the ministry.

DaveHayden · May 2, 2004

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Question?

Originally posted by Gabe

Mr. Douglas, we agree, but my point is perhaps more subtle: A degree is, like the awards given by the Wizard of Oz, a document implying some level of achievement. Colleges give them all the time, and yes, unaccredited schools' degrees are less sell-able. But there is the other dimension--of being educated--that is, as you point out, different from the credentialing function of a university. My point is that we are so consumed with the credentialing (sell-able) function of our universities that the educative function is almost invisible. Whether we speak of traditional or nontraditional colleges, our higher education system is driven not by achievement (education) but by money and privilege. Where else in the world today would the most famous Yale University graduate say at his commencement address, "Not bad for a 'C' student?!"
Where else in the world could such an inarticulate student not only receive a degree from an accredited university, but a degree from each of the two most prestigious universities in America? In the final analysis, all American institutions are--or have become in order to survive--diploma mills. To me, the big problem in this discussion board is that posters conveniently <ignore> the mills that service the fortunate (like Yale and Harvard), while attacking the mills that attempt to serve the hopeful poor who take out student loans to achieve respectibility. (Look at the recent Annenberg Foundation studies to see what I'm talking about.) I'm not advocating we allow diploma mills to continue unexamined. But let's look at <all> the mills out there, not just those that attempt to serve poor and minority Americans with questionable and questioned Ph.D degrees.
Gabe
Click to expand...

Not to be rude Gabe, but I think you have it all wrong. First the vast majority, perhap 99+%, of all unaccredited schools are out and out mills. They require little to no work and certainly provide no education at all. Are there a handfull of unaccredited schools that provide real learning? Sure, but it is much harder to find analyze them than to just find a good low-cost accredited school. Secondly your theory depends upon legitimate unaccredited schools being easier to get into or cheaper to afford. Neither is true. I have found accredited schools that are as cheap or cheaper than any legitimate unaccredited school, usually MUCH cheaper. Many RA schools have no entry requirements such as Community Colleges. I value the pioneering work done by Union and later unaccredited school like CCU and CPU, but I don't think the education field would be hurt at all if all unaccredited schools disappeared tomorrow.

BillDayson · May 2, 2004

Re: Re: Re: Question?

Originally posted by Gabe
Mr. Dayson, I agree fully
Click to expand...

I wish that everyone else here would display your obvious wisdom and good sense.

and have sought out nontraditional degree and nondegree opportunities myself, mostly because I enjoy learning. Sometimes it worries me at how narrow and strident some of the posters are on this board, implying or stating directly that unaccredited degree programs are worthless. They are not...
Click to expand...

Some are and some aren't. Unfortunately, most non-accredited degree programs are pretty lame, that's just a fact.

At this point in my life, I'm not especially interested in earning any more degrees, so I'm less moved by all that stuff. Even if a degree program is clearly substandard, it still might offer some interesting or unusual instruction. So I might consider enrolling in it without a degree objective, just for the education it provides.

This is why my interest has turned to all of the non-credit, non-degree DL available out there, things that Degreeinfo never discusses but which are probably the most appropriate thing for me right now.

The thing with degrees is that they are certifications. They certify that a student's education has met an expected standard. Normally, students earn degrees in order to convince other people of something or other. That implies that in order not to be misleading, the degree has to meet other people's expectations. Even if a student earns a degree entirely for personal reasons, the student has to actually believe in it or else it won't work.

I'm the first to argue that some non-accredited degree programs are credible. University of the West is an example I that toss around like other people here use Bob Jones. Of course, the U. West is steaming towards accreditation at deliberate speed (it's currently an RA candidate) while BJU has opted to remain defiantly anchored out there in the middle of the nonaccredited sea for its own religious reasons.

But the thing is, absent accreditation the burden of proof shifts. The burden is on the degree holder to make a convincing case for his or her own education. That's not always going to be an easy thing to do. And as Thorsen's post about PCC demonstrates, not everyone out there is going to sit still while you try to make your case. They might just summarily dismiss you.

Of course, if you deemphasize all that degree stuff and look at DL as the valuable addition instruction and interaction to the kind of independent study represented by reading a book, then you are demanding less. The clouds dissipate and the sun once again shines.

Gabe · May 2, 2004

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Question?

Originally posted by DaveHayden

Not to be rude Gabe, but I think you have it all wrong. First the vast majority, perhap 99+%, of all unaccredited schools are out and out mills.

Mr. Hayden, you aren't being rude by disagreeing, although I hardly think you are accurate in saying that I "have it all wrong." But my wrongness aside, my point is simply that you, and many others on this board, have made a distinction in your mind between a "mill" and a "non-mill" which you each must adhere to in order to argue for and against mills and non-mills. That's clear. But to me, the difference between mill and non-mill is less clear. For one personal instance, which proves nothing, I taught for a non-traditional grad. school and worked with some of the most motivated, intelligent and articulate students of my life.
For another, I see men of privilege (like our President, for example) graduate from the "rigorous" Yale and Harvard, gleefully accepting their gentlemens' C's. My point is this: If a "mill" is defined as an institution from which one can secure a degree or diploma upon payment and attendance (sometimes), then for the privileged in America, Yale and Harvard have historically been mills. Do you think money and family standing do not matter in the admissions decisions of these institutions? Do you think these institutions readily wash out rich scions? Do you really think these schools are inherently more rigorous because they can be more selective? I argue that they are <less> rigorous, because the hardest part is getting admitted, available to the privileged few. So when you say that "99%" of unaccredited institutions are mills, I would add that 99% of ALL accredited institutions are also, under some circumstances, mills. In America, money talks, even--especially--in the hallowed halls of academe.
Gabe
Click to expand...

DaveHayden · May 3, 2004

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Question?

Originally posted by Gabe

Originally posted by DaveHayden

Not to be rude Gabe, but I think you have it all wrong. First the vast majority, perhap 99+%, of all unaccredited schools are out and out mills.

Mr. Hayden, you aren't being rude by disagreeing, although I hardly think you are accurate in saying that I "have it all wrong." But my wrongness aside, my point is simply that you, and many others on this board, have made a distinction in your mind between a "mill" and a "non-mill" which you each must adhere to in order to argue for and against mills and non-mills. That's clear. But to me, the difference between mill and non-mill is less clear. For one personal instance, which proves nothing, I taught for a non-traditional grad. school and worked with some of the most motivated, intelligent and articulate students of my life.
For another, I see men of privilege (like our President, for example) graduate from the "rigorous" Yale and Harvard, gleefully accepting their gentlemens' C's. My point is this: If a "mill" is defined as an institution from which one can secure a degree or diploma upon payment and attendance (sometimes), then for the privileged in America, Yale and Harvard have historically been mills. Do you think money and family standing do not matter in the admissions decisions of these institutions? Do you think these institutions readily wash out rich scions? Do you really think these schools are inherently more rigorous because they can be more selective? I argue that they are <less> rigorous, because the hardest part is getting admitted, available to the privileged few. So when you say that "99%" of unaccredited institutions are mills, I would add that 99% of ALL accredited institutions are also, under some circumstances, mills. In America, money talks, even--especially--in the hallowed halls of academe.
Gabe
Click to expand...

Hi Gabe

Thanks for taking my chiding in a good nature. I am interested in knowing what makes you think course work at Harvard, Yale and other Ivy league schools is easy? My impression is a famous or wealthy parent may help you get in, but I doubt the course work is easier than say U of Washington or other top quality state school.

When you say "...99% of ALL accredited institutions are also, under some circumstances, mills", it seems like you are grossly exaggerating. If not what proof of such do you have?

Again, it has been asked repeated why someone should choose an unaccredited school, when an RA program will be as cheap or cheaper and have much more utility.
Click to expand...

Gabe · May 3, 2004

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Question?

Originally posted by DaveHayden

"Hi Gabe

Thanks for taking my chiding in a good nature. I am interested in knowing what makes you think course work at Harvard, Yale and other Ivy league schools is easy?"

Dave, I did not say it was "easy." I said that courses at those institutions were not necessarily more rigorous.

"My impression is a famous or wealthy parent may help you get in, but I doubt the course work is easier than say U of Washington or other top quality state school."

A wealthy/influential parent will more than <help> you get in; they will pretty much assure that you get in. Rich people get what they want. Again, I did not say the course work is easier or harder. Those types of comparisons are impossible to make. My sense--I'm an old man and have met numerous grads from ivys and non-ivys, is that some courses are indeed challenging, but many are not. I'll say it again: No school would dare flunk out George Bush (or a Kennedy, or Clinton's kid, etc. etc.) I think you and I can agree on that.

"When you say "...99% of ALL accredited institutions are also, under some circumstances, mills", it seems like you are grossly exaggerating. If not what proof of such do you have?"

A "mill" is, in my opinion, in the eye of the beholder. You know how Rush Limbaugh and his ilk call people they disagree with a "liberal?" Well, that tells us a lot more about Mr. Limbaugh than about the person to whom he refers. Same with "mills": they tell us more about the attitude of the accuser rather than some objective reality (except in the obvious cases of diploma-purchasing schemes). In some circumstances, reputable universities will be more, uh, charitable to its wealthier students. Do you think there was a chance George Bush would or could flunk out of Yale, or Harvard grad school? Yes, Clinton was a scholar, but do you think all the Kennedys were? Their father was incredibly influential, as was Prescott Bush et al. I was merely saying that when these kinds of dynamics exist, you have conditions remarkably similar to those of the "diploma mill." That's the best "proof" I can offer, Dave.

"Again, it has been asked repeated why someone should choose an unaccredited school, when an RA program will be as cheap or cheaper and have much more utility.
Click to expand...

"

I don't know. But there are probably as many reasons for selecting a school accredited or unaccredited, as there are students doing the choosing. I continue to be amazed at the conviction some have that, because a program has been accredited, it--and those who graduate from it--are somehow automatically high-quality, and well-educated. As I said earlier, we live in a credential society. Most would choose a degree program that we could "do something with." Fine. But sometimes the strength at which people rail at "mills" makes me feel they are either being put up to it, have a vested interest in a program seeking to be seen as a non-mill, or simply think is such black-and-white terms that any shades of grey are upsetting.

The bottom line is that I just don't have the confidence that others here seem to invest in accrediting boards' decisions. I've seen how those things work and I can only shake my grey head. If I know little else, I know the process isn't about ensuring educational quality.

Gabe

Gabe · May 3, 2004

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Question?

Sorry. In my previous post, I did not work the quotations quite well, so my comments appear interspersed with Dave's, until the end. I'll figure it out soon!
Gabe

Bill Huffman · May 3, 2004

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Question?

Originally posted by Gabe
I continue to be amazed at the conviction some have that, because a program has been accredited, it--and those who graduate from it--are somehow automatically high-quality, and well-educated.
Click to expand...

I don't recall anyone arguing that. What an accredited degree means is that the rest of society can feel more secure that the individual has actually accomplished a standard level of academic achievement. Generally an unaccredited degree carries no such assurance.

Mike Albrecht · May 3, 2004

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Question?

Originally posted by Gabe
"

I don't know. But there are probably as many reasons for selecting a school accredited or unaccredited, as there are students doing the choosing. I continue to be amazed at the conviction some have that, because a program has been accredited, it--and those who graduate from it--are somehow automatically high-quality, and well-educated. ....
Click to expand...

I do not believe that just because some one has a degree from an accredited school, they are educated. But, given two absolute strangers, with absolute no way to tell anything about them, but one as an accredited degree and one has an unaccredited degree, I would be inclined to believe that the accredited degree holder was better educated than the unaccredited holder. Reason being that there is some independent verification that the accredited school is meeting a minimum set of standards. There is no such proof for the unaccredited organization

I liken it to buying meat from a grocery store versus a guy selling it out of his pickup along the side of road. The latter may be better, but I have some guarantee that some agency has inspected the former.

Now if you can provide some independent, verifiable proof of the quality of the unaccredited program, then I will consider it, otherwise its just some yahoo with a printing press and a web site scamming innocent dupes.

uncle janko · May 3, 2004

Actually, Gabe, the canard that "everybody" who thinks accreditation is useful also thinks that it guarantees utter topflight quality is a common sqwawk of people who shill for degree mills. Since the second thought is transparently silly, they figure that linking it to the first thought somehow discredits the actual usefulness of accreditation. Don't fall for that nonsense. Almost always the accredited school is the better academically, practically, usefully, and in terms of "prestige". There are exceptions (and many of us have mentioned them quite positively), but they are rare.
Best of luck to you as you investigate DL, and welcome to the board.

Chip · May 3, 2004

I will go it one further and say that, when I was a manager doing a lot of hiring, someone holding a degree from a known fake school was automatically eliminated, under the theory that if they're willing to lie to me get the job, they can't be trusted to have the job.

People with unwonderful degrees would very rarely be given an interview. In those cases, I'd make it a point to ask about the degree, how it was earned, what sort of work was done, etc. In almost every case, the person blatantly lied about the school, what work s/he did, etc. (I once had a Westbrook grad tell me about his lab classes and his practicum in their clinic. When I said I wasn't aware that they had any sort of on-campus programs, he became strangely silent.)

So, for me, an unaccredited degree often says more about the character of the applicant than his or her education.

On the other hand. I'll freely admit that I've interviewed at least one or two applicants from Ivy League schools, that I swear didn't have the common sense or intelligence that God granted to a head of lettuce.

But, that notwithstanding, while an RA degree in no way ensures that the applicant is intelligent and capable, it does, in most cases, provide at least a baseline assurance of some sort of reasonable ability to think and use deductive reasoning that an individual with an unaccredited degree or no degree may not have.

BillDayson · May 3, 2004

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Question?

Originally posted by Gabe
I continue to be amazed at the conviction some have that, because a program has been accredited, it--and those who graduate from it--are somehow automatically high-quality, and well-educated.
Click to expand...

If universities are incapable of teaching their students or of reliably assessing those students' work, then why would anyone seek an education in the first place?

Why would students seek an education for themselves? Why would employers and clients desire services from educated individuals?

Is all of this some kind of terrible mistake?

But sometimes the strength at which people rail at "mills" makes me feel they are either being put up to it, have a vested interest in a program seeking to be seen as a non-mill, or simply think is such black-and-white terms that any shades of grey are upsetting.
Click to expand...

OK, our rejection of degree mills is a sign either of a hidden agenda at work, or of a fundamental inability to reason well.

Right. That makes sense.

The bottom line is that I just don't have the confidence that others here seem to invest in accrediting boards' decisions.
Click to expand...

I do. I think that the regional accreditors do a good job. I think that the specialized accreditors do as well. What's more, the fact that different accrediting bodies accredit the same universities tends to corroborate their work.

But assuming for the sake of argument that you are right and that accreditation is a load of utter crap, then what exactly would you have us do?

Write off real-life higher education and just go get drunk?

Accept everything blindly after tearing down and rejecting all evaluative criteria that aren't perfect? (Frankly, that rather bizarre and self-defeating idea seems to me to be what you are suggesting.)

Or use some kind of superior discernment that only you can see?

Gabe · May 3, 2004

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Question?

Thank you for your replies. They are all correct.
All best,
Gabe

adireynolds · May 3, 2004

Originally posted by Chip
On the other hand. I'll freely admit that I've interviewed at least one or two applicants from Ivy League schools, that I swear didn't have the common sense or intelligence that God granted to a head of lettuce.

Click to expand...

ROTFLMAO!

Thanks, Chip, I needed a good laugh!

Log in or Sign up

Legitimacy of an unaccredited University!!!!

Gabe New Member

Rich Douglas Well-Known Member

Chip Administrator

adireynolds New Member

Gabe New Member

Thorsen New Member

DaveHayden New Member

BillDayson New Member

Gabe New Member

DaveHayden New Member

Gabe New Member

Gabe New Member

Bill Huffman Well-Known Member

Mike Albrecht New Member

uncle janko member

Chip Administrator

BillDayson New Member

Gabe New Member

adireynolds New Member

Share This Page

Log in or Sign up

Legitimacy of an unaccredited University!!!!

Gabe New Member

Rich Douglas Well-Known Member

Chip Administrator

adireynolds New Member

Gabe New Member

Thorsen New Member

DaveHayden New Member

BillDayson New Member

Gabe New Member

DaveHayden New Member

Gabe New Member

Gabe New Member

Bill Huffman Well-Known Member

Mike Albrecht New Member

uncle janko member

Chip Administrator

BillDayson New Member

Gabe New Member

adireynolds New Member

Share This Page

Useful Searches