48-72 Hours: Will Cal Coast Become USDoE Recognized?

I disagree with your wording.
CCU did not “fail” to get granted accreditation since the matter was never voted upon. The vote was deferred until January of 2005. Therefore it is a misstatement that failure to be granted accreditation was “the case here“. There is a status quo. No reason for anyone to celebrate or sulk. That will happen in 2005.

Veritas,

Michael

P.S. Just so everyone knows I have a vested interest that CCU gets accredited, since I am currently enrolled, but that does not mean I am ignorant or biased in regards to my opinion, nor do I have a chip on my shoulder.

MB

 

Actually DETC can, and has in the past, denied accreditation. (Reference Page 31 of the Accreditation Handbook posted on DETC's website.) I don't believe the Commission publicly announces denials.

Deferrals are granted only if the school presently meets most of the standards but needs additional time to address Commission concerns.

 

No, the Commission voted to defer a decision.

 

Thank you for the clarification.

Veritas,

Michael

 

Do you mean that CCU could not achieved DETC accreditation in the meeting? Is it a formal announcement? Then, what institutions have gained the accreditation??

I am really disappointed.

 

There are many options open to you.

Why limit yourself, unless you were doing futures trading in accreditation, hoping to get an accredited degree for doing work less rigorous than normally required for an accredited degree?
Surely not!

There is a big wide world out there and CCU, whatever is good or bad about it, shouldn't monopolize anybody's radar screen.

 

To me it indicates that the school marketing is run by dishonest people that are trying to mislead potential customers. Because the DETC has accepted and accredited schools that did this and WERE doing it as they were being evaluated by DETC and continued doing it until their acceptance was announced, it indicates to me that DETC is second rate and inferior to RA. It will ensure that DETC will be inferior until they prove that they no longer accept fraudulent type behavior in their schools and years pass to make sure that it is a permanent improvement.

 

Who would ever do something as ridiculous as that?

 

Initially, I thought that the proposed changes to DETC's policies involving the ability to deny schools with an unsavory reputation was a step in the right direction... until it was pointed out that all the regulation apparently requires is that the school change its name to get away from it's shady past.

Hardly a harbinger of a meaningful desire to upgrade the standards. And yet, Mike Lambert, in his various emails and correspondence with me, has sent detailed defenses, so he's cleary concerned about the reputation and perception that DETC has, at least among the majority of the DegreeInfo crowd.

The saddest thing was the enclosure of DETC's "self study analysis", which was an extremely poorly designed survey that basically asked grads with DETC degrees whether they were "satisfied" and whether their degree had helped them. You could survey an equal bunch of St. Regis or Trinity C&U grads and I'm sure you'd find almost the same level of "satisfaction," so it's hardly anything worth talking about.

I'm guessing, as others have said, that while DETC's standards may not have changed, their interpretation and enforcement of those standards may be changing. If DETC had followed it's own written standards, it would never have approved AICS/ACCIS or Columbia Southern. Yet it conveniently looked past the flagrant violations, probably because it wanted the cash from those schools.

And those decisions were years ago, and still haunt DETC (which has never, ever made any attempt to explain, justify, apologize, or otherwise indicate that it screwed up.) Maybe now, in what we're seeing, DETC is belatedly taking under advisement what a lot of people have been saying for a long time. But unfortunately, it will probably take many years -- and a lot of effort on the part of DETC -- before it's ever able to gain a status equivalent with regional accreditation.

 

I believe the new standard goes beyond just the name. Quoting the DETC Handbook:
"The institution's owners, governing board members, and administrators possess sound reputations and show a record of integrity and ethical conduct in their professional activities, business operations and relations."

A simple name change would not cure these type of problems.

 

Did DETC screw up with CSU? It seems to be a strong link in DETC having forged agreements with R/A schools. It was only accredited 3 1/2 years ago. Perhaps people were hearing their own words aped on public forums and the perception that the school was not up to snuff was just a perception unrelated to fact.

 

I'm unfamilar with the Columbia Southern University story. Would someone please be so kind as to tell the story?

 

Wasn't the major problem that CSU claimed bogus accreditation?

Anyway, Columbia Southern has certainly been a case study in a school going from a notorious unaccredited status to being a relatively respected accredited institution. They are headed in the right direction. From what I understand, if they fell within the realm of any RA authority other than SACS, they would probably be seeking regional accreditation about now.

 

Hi Rich and everyone else who has an interest in this topic - DETC does deny accreditation and it does announce denials publicly as is required of all accrediting agencies authorized by the DETC. The reason, in my opinion, that the denials do not receive a lot of attention is that the denials are not reported until after the required appeals process/time has passed which translates into some months beyond the commission meeting when the decision to deny is made by the commissioners. Given this is a group that likes statements to be proven the one case I can recall quickly is the denial of St. John's in LA. I think they were denied in January, but the announcement appeared in the June Washington Bulletin put out by DETC.

Now, in the case of the most recent commission meeting, I have no more information than any of you have, but I do know the rules and as such I can tell you that in every case one of four things can happen. The commissioners can:
1. Accredit a new institutionor continue an institution's accredited status
2. Accredit or continue accreditation with conditions that a school must agree to meet with a period not to exceed one year (and yes the commision can initiate adverse action if a school faile to meet all of the stipulations wtih the time period)
3. Defer a decision for a period not to exceed one year pending receipt of a Special Report, or submission of additional infomration and possibly a follow-on on-site visit, OR
4. deny accreditation to an applicant or withdraw accreditation from an accredited school.

AFTER a final decision has been made (accreditation and denial of accreditation are FINAL decisions) then the DETC makes an announcement in one of its publications. A deferral is NOT a final decision. If a school is deferred and then chooses not to provide the additional information, I do not believe the Commission is required to report anything, but I am not sure about that. I do know that Aspen, in it's first attempt many years ago was deferred by the commission and achieved its accreditation after much hard work and undergoing a second complete site visit.

While I do not claim to be an expert, as President of a DETC school I do need to know the standards for accreditation that govern our institution. If you have questions about the DETC you can, as Rich and others have done, call them or visit their website. There is a great deal of information available on the website and most of it is available to the public for download, including, if you want it, the accreditation handbook.

Thanks for "listening" and allowing me to correct this misinformation.

Mary Adams
President
Aspen University

 

Sounds definitive to me. Thanks, Mary!

 

Any time, Rich - I just wish I hadn't been in such hurry to post (read that - wish I had used the preview reply button!) as I can see more than a few typos... I really do know the difference between its and it's and of course it should read agencies authorized by the Ed Dept. but I am glad you got the main points!

Best,
Mary

 

Its a definite screw up. CSU even though DETC accredited still nothing but a Diploma Mill. DETC is a paper mill agency where you supply them bunch process, procedures, handbooks, faculty information, gather bunch of RA qualified professors and off course lots of money and that will ensure DETC accreditation.

But what happens next, DETC has no means of monitoring the quality assurance of how these universities operate. As my knowledge goes CSU has thousands of students in asia and producing sub-standard graduates. I can disucss in length how they operate as one of my student has taken some courses with them. They provide a study guide, a textbook, print the examination, complete at home, go online and enter the marks, do a scholarly paper aound 3 to 5 pages and thats it you will get the grade for the course. Take the next course and do the same.....Is that american education all about??????

I think I am better with Maqlaysian post-graduate degree

Peter Chin

 

It's a good thing that neither CSU nor DETC employ or have access to any attorneys, otherwise, they might sue you.

Oh, wait, maybe they do.

 

Well, of course, truth is an affirmative defense to accusations of libel or defamation.

 

\


Oh, thats the problem when u speak the truth you get threatened to be sued!!!!!!!!!

I am just about ready to be sued as I am sure of winning the suit with enough evidances.

Peter Chin