I'm new but these things surprise me

I'm new to the topic of accredation DL and diploma, basically I was doing background research for an audit and got really interested in the topic.

The 2 things I find most surprising are:

That HR professionals aren't more savvy in this area. We're a pretty big company, and we don't routinely verify degrees at all, it is left to the discretion of the hiring manager and not done very much or very well.

2nd, that there is no central respository to report people using bogus credentials. Just using Google, I was able to pick out people very easily. Not just worker bees, but some pretty impressive sounding titles that Graduated from St. Regis, etc.

Is there anything being systematically done about these people?

 

Not surprising.

Sort of a deadbeat database, you're saying? If you decide to actually do it, may I suggest, instead, that you just have someone paint "Sue Me!" on your back in bright, orange letters and save yourself a lot of trouble.

Indeed. They're everywhere.

Nope.

Welcome to the frustration club. And the "why-doesn't-someone-do-something" club. And several other similar clubs to which we all pretty much belong.

It's a problem; but it's hardly a new problem. Diploma/degree mills, and those with fake credentials from them, have been around... well... seems like forever... at least since there have been matchbook covers on which to place ads for them; or newspapers and/or magazines classified sections where small, inexpensive ads for them have appeared from the outset. Now, the Internet makes it easier than ever for bogus institutions to appear more credible than ever (and the operative word, there, is "appear").

Makes you wanna' write your congressman, doesn't it? Don't. They won't do anything either. It's outrageous.

I used to share your surprise. Now I just shrug my shoulders, and shake my head in disbelief a lot. You're certainly welcome to join me.

 

This is the focus of my PhD research so the answer is yes, something is being developed, but its a work in progress. Stay tuned.

Cheers,

George

 

Um, didn't Heston, like ... um, tell you?

Soylent Green is.....

 

Re: Re: I'm new but these things surprise me

PEEPULL!! It's PEEPULL!! Oh God, it's peepull.


(sorry, couldn't resist)

Kit

 

In addition to the safety orange "SUE ME!" sign suggested by Des Elms, there are other problems with this idea:

1. There is not anywhere near conclusive agreement on what constitutes "bogus" degrees. To many, anything not approved by an accreditor recognized by the US DOE/CHEA is bogus, or at least suspect. A few take that a step further by believing anything not recognized by one of the six regional accreditors is bogus, or at least suspect. Others believe that unaccredited is OK in certain cases, such as the few good unaccredited schools. Of those who believe unaccredited schools are OK, there is further disagreement as to which of those schools are good and which are bogus.

2. Accreditation is a voluntary process rather than mandatory. Since that is the case any person or entity making definitive decisions on what schools are bogus, such as putting them in a national database, had better get ready to wear that orange sign.

3. Requiring US DOE/CHEA recognized accreditation could pose a problem for religious schools. There are perfectly good schools that choose not to submit to accreditation on religious grounds. (One cited objection is that recognized accreditors would not consider Jesus or any of His apostles to be qualified to teach.) Since we cannot promote or discourage religious practice then we cannot require these schools to submit to accreditation.

4. There are many specialized professional accreditors above and beyond those recognized by US DOE/CHEA. For example, the ABA, ABET, League of Nursing, etc., etc., ad infinitum (or so it seems). Licensed professions usually require these additional accreditations on top of US DOE/CHEA recognized accreditation.

5. Even though we have a federal education department (US DOE), education itself including higher education, is largely controlled by states and there is wide variation in policies. For example, California allows graduates of some unaccredited law schools to take the California Bar Exam. Other states only allow graduates of accredited and ABA-approved programs to take their state's bar exams. Oregon disallows use of unaccredited degrees even for private employment unless holders of such degrees inform prospective employers in advance. Other states have no restrictions on utility of unaccredited degrees, preferring instead to leave it up to individual employers.

6. As far as including individuals in any national database, what criteria would be used and who would decide what that criteria would be? Do you include only holders of unaccredited degrees? Do you include holders of regionally and nationally accredited degrees that do not include any needed or desirable additional professional accreditation? Do you include any and all holders of unaccredited degrees or only those who actually tried to use them for employment purposes? Do you include holders of any unaccredited degrees who also posess other, accredited degrees? And so on, and so on ....

7. Also on the question of individuals, your HR professionals can surely warn you regarding labor laws that specifically limit what can be said, printed, or reported about current or former employees. Undoubtedly these laws would disallow such things as reporting a former employee who was terminated for using a bogus degree because clearly it is negative information that could prevent them from seeking future employment, in effect it's blackballing, which is not legal except in specific cases such as medical licenses. EEOC hiring laws can come into play as well, such as claims that disadvantaged groups do not have equal access to accredited degrees.

So you see there is no easy answer, such as a national repository. Employers simply must take responsibility by checking the legitimacy of degrees claimed by employees or prospective employees. As you discovered by only using simple Google searches, it's really not all that difficult. A more effective method for employers who want accredited degrees is to search the CHEA database at this link . The problem is created because even though these checks do not have to be time-consuming, employers often don't bother doing them.

Kit

 

I just want to add to my comment above that even with licenses to practice medicine, any blackballing is only done on a state basis. There is no national repository of doctors who have lost their licenses, even for clear violations involving malpractice. There have been many cases of doctors who lost their licenses to practice in one state, only to simply move to another state and obtain a license to practice there. Kinda makes you want to ask any new doctor you might see if he/she has ever lost their license to practice in any any other state, doesn't it? There has been much talk of creating such a national database for medical professionals, but so far nothing has been done.

If there is no such national database even for medical practice then what do you think they chances are that any general one could be implemented and operate legally?

Kit

 

epistemological donut

Um, I understand the outer parts of this thread but there is material in the middle that sort of escapes me.

PS. Don't tell anybody I said epistemological. They might animadvert.

 

Re: epistemological donut

Tio Janko, link to a donut

Kit

 

Re: Re: I'm new but these things surprise me

Because I, in a very small way, described this "know-nothing--do nothing" attitude of HR, I might have something up my sleeve in the future, too.

 

Great points all-around

"I used to share your surprise. Now I just shrug my shoulders, and shake my head in disbelief a lot. You're certainly welcome to join me."

Count me in!

"This is the focus of my PhD research so the answer is yes, something is being developed, but its a work in progress. Stay tuned."

Sounds like a great project.

"Also on the question of individuals, your HR professionals can surely warn you regarding labor laws that specifically limit what can be said, printed, or reported about current or former employees."

All too familiar with this. If the Unabomber could clean himself up for 30 minutes and display good communication skills, I'd have to hire him because I can't confirm his former work experience, his accomplishments, his salary, or just about anything else. Sometimes I get a "would hire again" from some unknown person with an unknown relationship to the prospect.

"Employers simply must take responsibility by checking the legitimacy of degrees claimed by employees or prospective employees."

Will do everything I can to ensure we're not one of "THOSE" organizations who are publicly embarrased when their CEO turns out to have an MBA from The University of Northern Washington.

 

Follow ups

Couple follow-ups.

For our organization, I am going to use the ODA listing of schools. Anyone that turns up with a degree from there will be flagged for further review. It might be okay, but the manager should at least be made aware of it at that point to make an informed judgement. HR currently leaves the manager at-risk, by making it a manager responsibililty to write job descriptions and understand the subtle differences in degrees.

It does burn me to see these guys on Google. The most galling guy has an education title with a huge company, a book on Amazon, and claims to have taught at a couple of colleges. Also working on his Phd. Both the MBA and PhD schools are on the ODA bad list. You'd think 1 person would have checked credentials.

Anyway, I guess I can only try to cover our company, and possibly write an article for one of our trade mags to raise awareness.

 

ODA is a good start, but far from complete. And as was stated in another thread, given that the St. Regis people were coming up with dozens of fraudulent schools each month, it would be nearly impossible to have a comprehensive database of fraudulent schools.

I'd suggest doing it the other way... using the CHEA database (www.chea.org) which accesses the databases of each of the six regionals, to check out a school. If a school is in the database, it's regionally accredited (I think some of the professional accreditors are in there too), and you're done. If it's not, then you can check the DETC database, and if it shows up in neither place, check either the message archives here (yes, we're working on the search function) or get a copy of Bears' Guide.

Between those resourrces, you should be able to find out about just about any school on the planet.

 

Actually, the CHEA database lists all institutions approved by their recognized accreditors, including DETC, so there's no reason to go to a separate database.

Many (most?) employers presently aren't even checking at all, so clearly if they are even interested in starting then it's best to use an expedient method with the least amount of cross-referencing. To do otherwise is to set up a system where compliance is going to slip, eventually leading right back to the original problem.

Kit

 

I don't think that is quite accurate. The CHEA database does not list foreign schools that are not RA/NA accredited.

The University of the Sunshine Coast* would not appear on those lists. Would it be considered legit or flagged as suspicious?


Surprisingly enough given the name, it is legit. It is Austrlia's newest (puplic) university (~10yrs old) and is located in Queensland (not as surprisingly).

 

Actually, the USDE database (linked-to in my signature, below) includes the institutions accredited by tiny handful of agencies that are not also approved by CHEA, suggesting that the USDE database might be more complete. On the flip side of that, we know that when the USDE database first launched, it has some inaccuracies and incompleteness... which I don't know has been completely repaired (though I think it has). In my signature, below, I link to both databases, just so all bases are covered. If a given institution isn't in at least one of those two databases, there's kinda' no point in looking much further.

True. Neither the USDE or CHEA databases intend, really, to cover anything more than the U.S.

There are, however, authoritative, usually-governmental web sites where one can look-up authorized/accredited institutions in other countries. For example, if a given school in the UK isn't on either this web page, or this one, then stay away... or so it is my opinion. There are similar web sites/pages for most other countries.

 

Here's yet again another example of poor background screening and basic due dilligence.

http://www.startribune.com/stories/462/5689697.html

Cheers,

George

 

If they do some digging, I'll bet they find that that's not the first time she's done something like that. The firm should have given her some fake work to do -- a big project that would take a month or so -- while it did a full investigation; and then the results of said investigation should have been turned-over to the state bar and the district attorney for follow-up, and immediate arrest & prosecution. Now, instead, she's in the wind... and, I promise you, in another state, getting ready to do it again. This is, I'll bet dollars to donuts, a serious psychological problem on her part... and a repeating pattern. Dollars to donuts.

 

Little doubt that it is true.

The more interesting thing (at the moment in my demented mind) is "dollars to donuts". So what kind of bet are we really getting into here? How many dollars are you willing to wager for one of my donuts? When I lose, do you want your donut mailed to you or must I get a gift certificate at your favorite donut store? What is your favorite kind of donut? How about a fifty page contract proposal on my desk by this evening? There are many details to be worked out here so get cracking!

 

How can we bet, in any case, when we agree? We need to find someone who thinks she's not crazy -- and has access to good donuts -- in order for any of it to work out.

Oooh. Ouch. I know my reputation for verbosity precedes me, but was that really necessary?



You know what's frighteningly weirdly -- and sadly -- true about this situation, though? I could probably make that deadline (and page count) without breaking too much of a sweat. Oy.