I have been a student of both accredited and unaccredited schools. No mills. I can honestly say that the effort and time I put into the unaccredited (DL) schools was far more than the accredited. I had to learn topics completely, without assistance from an instructor to denote the most important aspects from the less. Very time consuming. Self-teaching is no cake walk. I regret not utilizing the same effort towards my accredited degrees. The utility of the unaccredited has not been a problem, but a personal disappointment. The accredited schools were not "Ivy League". Attendance would usually gain one a C grade. The entire educational system is in jeopardy from attempts to make students feel good about themselves, meet quotas, rather than teaching and requiring knowledge of subjects taught. I just graded some AP high school students' papers and was totally dismayed that a 60%, using curve, was an A. I absolutely agree accreditation is the only way. But I believe we should set our standards higher. I am sure someone will criticise my post for some trivial mistake, but I think I've made my point. Degreeinfo has been a great asset and I thank those who contribute valuable information, rather than critique minutia. Being older than most posters, and being a newbee to computers, has created some misinterpretation. My fault. This is the only site where I can view posts from intellects to trolls, humorists to shills. After being an observer of the discussions, I would like to see some of our bright writers propose a higher standard for accreditation. I'm not sure what would suffice, but the status quo is not sufficient. My computer knowledge is very rudimentary, so take it easy on the criticisms. Hope our fellow vets reflected on the good times spent with fallen friends. Absum!
You seem to be implying that unacredited schools do not provide any instruction - if that is the case then I can understand that it would be harder. But why pay for something you could do on your own for free?
Ian, At the time, I was told the schools were working towards accreditation. My job did not allow me to attend classes by a schedule. So, I did what I could. You need to know that DL was not the norm and even frowned upon. I've always worked outside the box. I did what I thought to be most beneficial for my situation. As my positions changed, I was given the opportunity to complete courses without attending classes. But had the input from instructors to assist in my studies. Although the unaccredited schools did not fulfill accepted standards, they did help me become more aware of self-study, without prejudice. So, in reflection, the money wasn't wasted. Regent's was still new and required certain tests (scheduled) that would keep me out of the game. Sometimes, you have to work with what's available. You could drop me off in the middle of nowhere, with nothing, and I'd get home. You govern your limitations. If you refuse to be governed, you'll find your limitations are speed-bumps. I realize I'm a nonconformist, but I usually worked in a survival mode. Sorry for the sermon. I'm sure there are several unaccredited schools that provide instruction, but why waste money in the present? Accreditation is an accepted standard. Why can't we raise the standard and challenge ourselves more? The kids I meet with a BA/BS usually meet the level of old high school students, or less. Just a curmudgeon's thoughts. Clay
