Stop me if you've heard this one before ...

I have a question about this topic.

The ODA site is brought up regularly when referencing a degree mill, less than wonderful, and unaccredited school. My question is if the ODA list is stupid, or silly then why is it silly for some and not for others?

While some disagree with certain schools being on the list like CCU, VIU, etc. the ODA is consistant. They may not list all institutions that are unaccredited, but they do put all unaccredited in the same category unless they apply to be removed from that category.

I do not know if it is a shakedown or not, but I do know that with accreditation the problem goes away. So, I hope to see all these schools seek accreditation.

 

The ODA itself is not the problem. The prohibition against using unaccredited degrees is not the problem. The list itself is the problem.

Or maybe someone could explain to me the point of the list. What does it represent? Are these the worst of the degree mills? Are they a random sampling of degree mills? Why is MIGS, which never issued one single degree, included on this list? Are the schools listed here someone's Nixon-style "enemies list"?

I suspect that the list is maintained to try to cut down on the workload of an understaffed office. Once they receive an inquiry, they put it on the list, so, hopefully, they won't have to answer the question again. But I think this undermines the purpose of the ODA.

The biggest problem that I have is that this seems like a great opportunity for mills to bolster their image: "Beware of illegal unaccredited schools like Kennedy-Western or California Coast. Unlike these schools, which some people would refer to as degree mills, our university is accredited by XYZ International and, as you can see from this link, is NOT included on Oregon's list of illegal degrees." And once they do get put on the list, they simply change the school's name. It would take all of a couple of minutes.

There are a finite number of accredited or Oregon-approved schools. Why not list those. Then it's a much more simple matter: if it's not on the list, it is illegal.

 

My guess is that the ODA never meant for their list to be anything more than an ad hoc tracking sheet of phony degree mills whose paper had been passed off as bona fides ... *in* Oregon. Something for the HR offices to reference. And then the mill sniffers at a.e.d. discovered it (before the tempest in a teapot) and started adding their $0.02.

 

If anyone out there ever suspects that Jeff and I are the same person, this message would be your proof. It accurately represents both my take on the ODA ("it's the list, stupid") and why it exists. Also, it reflects the e-mail exchange I had with Alan Contreras at ODA; he wants to have a better and segmented list, but doesn't have the staffing and money. Rather than choosing not to do it at all, he chooses to do it poorly.

 

Some might say that this is an exceedingly accurate description of the government, in general.

Jack

 

I've never understood the passionate hatred by some on Degreeinfo for Alan Contreras and the ODA.

One argument in this thread is that the ODA list is being done "poorly" because it mixes "legitimate non-accredited" in with "degree mills".

Well, one needs to remember what the list is. It's a list of schools that don't meet Oregon statutory requirements. The statutes don't distinguish between "legitimate non-accredited" and "degree mills".

What's more, how would one go about distinguishing between them? Wouldn't that determination often be impossible, given the lack of available information? Wouldn't the determination be extremely subjective? Wouldn't its results be violently controversial? Wouldn't it be very labor intensive? Wouldn't it be essentially irrelevant to the task that the Oregon legislature gave the ODA? And wouldn't it create possible legal risk?

 

It seems to me the best way to not be on the list is to either become accredited, or apply for Oregon approval. If neither is done then no school has the right to complain about being on the list. Right?

 

Hi Bill - You've made some good points here. I'm not someone who has "studied" the list or the history of the list. In fact, I think I've only been to the site once. With all that, it seems to me that many of the complaints about "the list" could be averted if some of the statements you've made above were adapted and included with the list. It would put it all in context and go a long way toward answering many of the above criticisms. Until then people seem at least somewhat justified in their misgivings.
Jack