Mr. Contreras - This is what you should be fighting!!!!

It would be good for some lively and amusing threads here on DegreeInfo. Unfortunately, I doubt that is high on the ODA's list of considerations.

 

probably not

That is the price that NBOE had posted as its charge for guaranteed accreditation. Unless there's new information about, the $50,000 figure probably refers to the advertised rate charged by NBOE. A search of posts on that subject will turn up, among other things, a post from John Bear about being shown an offer of sale of accreditation received by someone else, the president of an unaccredited school.

G

 

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Thank you to all who UNDERSTAND what I am saying

Yes, true. Perhaps if the DOE's in every American State could get together and hammer out some common policies in regard to unaccredited schools, the problems associated with these institutions may be lessened.

I am not sure about the 'innovation and options' argument. It seems that the type of innovations that we see emanating are often not all that academically sound. I am also not sure whether innovation and options are not already offered in programs offered by government schools in the UK and Australia where the national government have a tight rein over education policy.

Certainly in the area of distance education, I would say that the Australian system has been far more innovative and advanced to that of the US system. For example, it is possible through some Australian government universities (which are all B&M universities) to complete a bachelor, masters and doctorate without having to sight or step foot on the campus!

 

Bill,

I totally agree with you on this. It's my opinion that this list should be used only for Oregon-related matters. Unfortunately, other non-Oregon related jurisdictions are relying on the list as well without any apparent legal authroity to do so. This is why the ODA list has cause such a fire storm. While this is not Oregaon's fault, if ODA modified the language so as not to use the term "degree mill", I believe the firestorm would subside. The Oregon code might be better served to address the list as somthing like "Institutions Issuing Degrees Not Authorized for Use in Oregon" or some similar language. I feel that this would serve the same purpose withing the State of Oregon without impacting and casting dispersions on legally operating non-RA institutions.

Ernie741

 

Hi Dave,

While I do agree that there needs to be less federal oversight of many things, I do believe that they need to be involved in this issue. (Sorry, another agree to disagree issue I think.) If educational credentials were only valid in the state acquired, your arguement would certainly be supported by me.

However, educational credentials are a comodity that is "leased" (my term) for the duration of the holder's employment and because their use is prevalent in an interstate manner (whether the holder is a consultant doing work in a different state or has intentions of relocation) university educational credentials could be construed as a form of interstate commerce. Indeed, from my perspective, it is a quirky-form of interstate commerce. The formal acquisition of accreditation by the USDOEd would actually bring us into line with the rest of the World on this issue. (Oh well, I guess there will be email bombs coming this way soon. Thank God we don't use snail-mail addresses!!!)

Ernie

 

Ernie, you make a good point. Certainly degrees are a commodity when it comes to using those qualifications for employment purposes, which most graduates do. It seems a serious dilemma that one State will accept a qualification when the next will lock you up if you use it!

Education in Australian used to be very much a State issue. However, gradually, the nation government has taken over more of the functions, especially in regard to post-secondary education. To ensure a consistency in standards, it was really the sensible way to go. Maybe the States in the USA need to seriously consider this option, or at least, decide among themselves as to common protocols.

The idea of 'voluntary' accreditation also seem an anomaly. One doesn't have 'voluntary' building codes and safety regulations, for example, so why 'voluntary' education standards? The integrity of the skills that a 'qualified' person possesses are surely as important!

 

Hi Ernie

I have no real problem with Federal involvement requiring accreditation, I just don't think it is likely. They have made it clear it is an issue they don't want to get involved with. They also seem to endorse efforts like Oregon's that strengthens educational choice. So be it.

 

Geez, perhaps we'll rue the day when the well-intentioned ODA list is somewhat accurate and we'll then having nothing to argue about... ;-)

I for one will miss these eloquent, "crusader-like" discussions about how inaccurate information makes the world a better place.

Dave

 

Hi Dave

Help me out here. Please link to any discussions that have detailed inaccurate information in the ODA list. What I have seen is discussion that people don't like how the ODA characterizes their unaccredited unapproved (by Oregon) schools. As far as I can tell the ODA's info is as close to 100% accurate as could be expected. I would guess that is why they are being recognized both by other States and the Federal government.

 

Bingo. Ditto.

Dave

 

Here you go...

The effort attempts to classify into simplified categories a group of unaccredited schools that grant degrees in a myriad of different good and not so good ways, which by their very nature cannot be classified with any degree of accuracy.

The schools only share one attribute in common; they are not regionally or nationally accredited. Consider that regional accrediting bodies do not maintain a list of unaccredited schools with the reasons why they are not or were not accredited. If the said schools are illegal by fiat or process under Oregon, then they should be classified only as illegal or otherwise. Any other classification process is impossible (i.e., probably stupid), because it would take the resources of nearly the entire Oregon State government to inspect every secondary institution on the planet for purposes of being accurate...

I have talked to the people at ODA and they are smart people attempting the impossible, which is why we are even having this discussion.

Please forgive the historical reference, but my philosophy could be characterized as "where they ban schools they will ban people..." So let's impose consumer protection without legislating countervailing forces out of existence. Accredited schools exist because there are unaccredited schools... Do you really want the federal government regulating what ideas and processes survive in higher education? I suppose that I don't.

Dave

 

Hi Dave

Thanks for the additional info not present in your previous post. I guess I would summarize it by saying it is your opinion they are giving inaccurate information, but others would disagree strongly. From what I have seen, the ODA's list is accurate and informative. It is information perspective students AND employers need to have. Certainly it would be less work to not list the information they have gathered, but it would also be a disservice to the tax payers. I would agree with your summation that banning schools is also, to a degree, banning degree mill graduates.

As to the idea of Federal management of education accreditation, it seems to work in Australia and England. It reduces the degree mill issue, but doesn't eliminate it. Personally, I prefer our current system with some strong state regulation to help out. Certainly there are a number of ways to approach educational standards. All work to a greater or lesser degree depending on your perspective.

 

Your opinion seems to be that the information published by ODA cannot be inaccurate and that most unaccredited schools are degree mills.

Logically, neither is true or could be true, so I'm having trouble understanding how you can continue arguing for both positions. Perhaps the truth is that the ODA list cannot be accurate because the process of investigating the schools passively is intrinsically flawed and that all the schools you classify as degree mills share only the common attribute that they are unaccredited.

If the list is not accurate at any point in time, then it might not be of utility to HR resume screeners at employers, or as a substitute for common sense, but it would protect Oregon consumers from all unaccredited schools who don't complain or file lawsuits.

Few have expressed an opinion that seems to mount a defense for the accuracy of the ODA list or that all unaccredited schools are degree mills. To do so smacks of "jackbooted-stormtrooperism" to me...

Do I correctly understand your opinions?

Dave

 

Hi Dave

I do believe the information published by the ODA is reasonably accurate. Like all information it COULD be inaccurate, but that doesn't appear to be the case. Like all information, you can look for a higher level accuracy than is possible and then unreasonably call the information inaccurate.

The vast majority of college level schools are accredited. Unaccredited school by definition are a tiny group that either are not capable of or have chosen (?!) to not be accredited. There are a limited number of legitimate and worthy unaccredited schools. Most ofl these become accredited within a relatively short period of time.

Schools that remain unaccredited over a long period of time are likely to be unaccreditable at any time or are not stable enough to attain it. From examining various unaccredited schools it does appear most, but certainly not all, are degree mills or near degree mills.

It is interesting that if we were in Australia or England, we wouldn't be having this discussion. These schools would be given a short and finite period and if they didn't become accredited they would be closed. Much like a manufacture who is producing an unsafe product would be closed down.

Personally I prefer a more open system like we have in the U.S., but it is also clear that we have let too many degree mills exist because of our inattention to proper regulation/accreditation. With a few more efforts like the ODA, this situation could be easily reversed without Federal control of education.

 

Hi

I just wanted to add this is the information I am looking at when making the above comments. If you are looking at something differetn when you are describing their info as inaccurate please provide a link to it. Thanks.

http://www.osac.state.or.us/oda/unaccredited.html

 

Where has JNelson been?

Haven't seen him around for a long time.

Stop by some time dude!

Abner :smile:

 

Is Contreras still in charge at the ODA? Does anyone know? I wrote a letter to the ODA this week and got a reply that my message was being forwarded to the "interim director".

 

I thought I heard somewhere that he caused his employer to be sued, but I don't remember the details.

Abner