Detc Accrediting Meeting This Weekend.

Why would this raise a problem ? The degree received by any of the UoW Validated institutions is no different to these received by students in Bangor, Swansea (yes, they do still receive UoW degrees now) and Newport, UWIC etc. that will stay within the University of Wales system.

Do you think that the UoW will disappear?
If this is the case why the Prince of Wales would just announce a £14 million scholarship scheme ? see http://www.wales.ac.uk/defaultpage.asp?page=E787

The journalistic speculation is interesting but it is just that. A State University with the support of the Crown will not disappear overnight just because you or BBC thinks so.

 

Calmu is now flying the DETC logo on their site -PLUS- a tuition increase.

 

Yes it is telling that she probably has better things to do than addressing your "very smart" solution. Did it ever occur to you that she might not care about your poison ?
Mike - an RKC student

 

For the record:
http://www.wales.ac.uk/defaultpage.asp?page=E787
The Prince of Wales announced a £14 million global scholarship and research scheme at the University of Wales. So no matter what BBC or Dr. Bear are saying the University is not just alive but very active. So it will be for a long time as many institution are still full members.
Mike

 

As you know this is just a speculation. The UoW validated institution do not issue any award: a course of study there will result on the same degree awarded to Bangor, Swansea (yes they are still getting UoW degrees) Newport, UWIC (that are not leaving the UoW system).

Are you suggesting that the University will disappear ?

There is no reason not to consider a UoW credential based on these journalistic speculations. The Prince of Wales has just announced a £14 Million global scholarship scheme for the University of Wales (see UoW press release on their website). A State University with the full support of the Welsh Government and the Crown will not disappear just because Dr Bear or the BBC say so.

Mike
RKC student

 

Why not? It's certainly possible for the various component units of the U. of Wales to offer fine higher-education themselves, while the U. of Wales validation unit is exercising insufficient care in its awarding of Wales franchises.

As I've written before, I think that there are legitimate accreditation concerns about the U. of Phoenix. I think that Phoenix is probably too large and geographically diffuse for an accreditor to effectively monitor what it's actually doing on the ground, so the accreditor is reduced to relying on big glossy submissions that Phoenix provides about its own wonderful internal procedures.

Well, exactly the same questions that arise with Phoenix arise here, don't they? Wales validates 117 (last time I counted) different colleges, universities and education companies in dozens of countries all around the planet. Does the QAA actually inspect all of them on-site, or do they simply rely on what the Wales validation unit tells them? (The QAA site does have a direct evaluation report on one Wales validated unit, in Rome, which checked out just fine, but that seems to be pretty much it, one of 117.)

That suggests that it might not be impossible for something substandard to get past the QAA. But is there any reason to suspect that something has? Not with 100% assurance, but the fact that a few Wales validated franchises had controversial histories as unaccredited degree-providers prior to validation and the fact that a couple of them continued to maintain relationships with mills after validation doesn't raise my confidence.

My own opinion is that the U. of Wales is/was a fine university. (It seems to be coming apart for reasons that are probably unrelated.) Unfortunately, it might have been over-aggressive in its attempts to turn its validation unit into a money-maker. I'm reasonably confident that many/most of the Wales-validated units really are reputable, so it would be in their interest if things were tightened up. The validation unit needs to be more scrupulous about validating things that could bring bad publicity down on everybody. Wales probably should be validating a smaller set of schools and paying closer attention to each one. More emphasis needs to be placed on academic-partnerships than on lucrative business-arrangements.

 

Why not ? Because the University of Wales is made mainly of its Validation Unit. All the teaching is responsibility of the member institutions. Beside the Validation Unit, as you can see on the website, there is just a department in Welsh studies.

The QAA seems to think that the Validation Unit is doing a good job:
"
The review team also considered that:

confidence can be placed in the soundness of the University's present and likely future management of the quality of its programmes and of the academic standards of its awards offered in collaboration with partners and administered by the University's Validation Unit.
Since the review QAA has been provided with information that indicates that appropriate action has been taken by the University in response to the findings of this report. As a result the review was signed off in October 2006."

Absolutely not the same: The QAA is not in charge of renewing or maintain the UoW Royal Charter. When the QAA audits a validated institution it doesn't pass judgement on that institution but is solely auditing the relationship of the UoW with said institution: essentially it is double checking if the relationship is regulated and conducted as per the UoW QA rules.

As a duly Charted University the UoW has the power to operate validation without the supervision of the QAA. In any case the judgement of the QAA on the UoW validation unit has been of "confidence" so I don't see how you can affirm that the UoW "might have been over-aggressive in its attempts to turn its validation unit into a money-maker. "

Did you visit any of the validated institution or reviewed their curriculum before passing judgement? If you didn't how can you judge them or the UoW and their Validation operations. The QAA confirmed the confidence of their operations yet you seems to suggest that that is a money making initiative with poor quality oversight. This is simply false and not backed by any evidence other than your own opinion.

Mike

 

Nice try: you are not reading the right QAA report. The limited confidence was not related to validations
""
The review team also considered that:

confidence can be placed in the soundness of the University's present and likely future management of the quality of its programmes and of the academic standards of its awards offered in collaboration with partners and administered by the University's Validation Unit.
Since the review QAA has been provided with information that indicates that appropriate action has been taken by the University in response to the findings of this report. As a result the review was signed off in October 2006."
"
but to other operations and was, in any case, rectified in 2005: four years ago.

And no, the University of Scranton (University Alliance) cannot be compared to the University of Wales. The University of Wales, like it or not, it is not just attracting students on the basis of "vaguely impressive-sounding names" it has over 100,000 students and one of the most important medical schools in the UK (even the University of Cardiff, that is no longer part of the UoW, still awards UoW degrees to their medical school graduates).
Mike

 

I could be wrong, but would they not visit the school's business offices and check things like curriculum and enrollment and business records?

 

TCord,

Is that the way it still happens? Your probably right. But I was thinking that, with all of today's technological advances, the records you've listed above could be offered to an accreditation visiting committee securely online (prior to an old fashioned/fart on-site visit, of course). This could be considered an on(line) (web)site visit, I guess.

 

I do find it interesting that 100% of Mikeluz's posts, dating back 3 years, relate to defending U of Wakes and RKC, and equally interesting that after a period of 2 or 3 years silence since the last postings, 10 of the 13 postings he has made are in the current thread.

This, like many of the other defenses of RKC, are consistent with typical millish activity; when somebody complains about your unwonderful school, send in a shill who is, or claims to be, a student of your program in order to refute the claims.

As for the comparison to UoP... there is one, and only one, regionally accredited school that we ever made a conscious decision not to include in our (currently offline) database of accredited schools, as well as schools for which we chose not to accept advertising. While we would certainly revisit that decision at the point that we again accept advertising, it was a sound decision based upon the myriad complaints and issues about UoP at the time.

As for AICS/ACCIS/Sentinel, may I point out that it was Mary, not me, that chose to respond to the comments made here about the program, but as soon as an option was suggested that could finally, as she wished to do, put the matter to rest, there was silence. Her initial response would certainly seem to go against the idea that she doesn't care about DegreeInfo's opinion, in much the same way that DETC's acknowledgement in their FAQ of our criticism of them would seem to indicate that they, too, care about DegreeInfo's opinion.

As for the Wales/RKC issue, there are plenty of otherwise legitimate schools that have made dumb decisions and affiliated themselves with unwonderful institutions or people in the past; the CEU and Sheila Danzig's awful (and illegal) MIGS would be one such example.

Since Bill is clearly more up to speed on the issue, I will leave it to him to continue to address the specific issues.

 

It might be interesting but it is very simple to understand: I have found this forum after a google search on my school sometime ago and did feel compelled to post only when the University of Wales was unfairly attacked.

I don't know anything about this CEU/MIGS story but I do know that after finishing my studies RKC, like it or not, lead to a University of Wales degree that is recognised Worldwide.

This is fact: not a story, personal opinion or speculation. Sure it might be convenient to say that Wales was wrong and that RKC is not a good school but it is not backed by any evidence whatsoever other than you clear status of "denial". As you didn't answer my question I assume that you never evaluated any of the courses offered at RKC nor the quality of its education.

Given this and that the UoW did validate the course over 5 years ago it is much more logical to assume that everything is fine rather than buying into your conspiracy theory that Wales, the FT and everyone else is wrong or worse.

I don't particularly like posting in this forum as there is certainly an unjustified bias against the college I am attending. This said I maintain that calling a legitimate and validated institution "clowns" without knowing the facts does not rend justice to the many students like myself that are studying diligently and will achieve a recognised degree.

 

Just to clarify the AICS/ACCIS/Sentinel issue you did miss the "Dear John" in Mary's post. She didn't ask you anything. She simply pointed out the facts to John that acknowledged her post. They are DETC accredited so all you say against the DETC and how/why they did decide to accredit it doesn't really matter. It doesn't cast any doubt about the DETC judgement but yours.

 

Perhaps you've missed the point. AICS was claiming bogus accreditation right up to the day that they were bestowed DETC accreditation. DETC has as part of their standards that a school must be honest and not misleading. Therefore, DETC bestowed accreditation to AICS that was in violation of DETC own standards. The issue is that if DETC will ignore their own standards in this example how common is this practice? This would seem to cast doubt about the DETC jedgement.

 

I think that both Mary and the DETC did clarify this point on their FAQ. I can see why Mary decided not to reply as these discussion seems to point no where. None of the members of this forum did evaluate AICS but is just drawing conclusions without the whole picture. The DETC certainly have more information to make a decision. Obviously that issue wasn't crucial or in any case was addressed to their satisfaction.

In my previous post I did highlight a number of incongruence in your assessment of the RKC/UoW partnership. Note that I did read each and every post on this subject (even the very old carcasses) and I can't find any evidence of what you and Chip are saying.

Some members of this forums even suggested that the UoW received limited confidence on validations by the QAA and this is certainly false.

Similarly you passed judgement on how many schools should the University of Wales associate itself with without any clue of their operations that, as previously pointed out, have been commended by the QAA.

Essentially I question how can you and other members judge a school that was a) validated (or in the case of AICS accredited) by a reputable body without having visited and evaluated that school;
b) confronted with evidence simply try to cast doubt on the accreditation agency/validation body;

It doesn't make any sense at all. The "mill speak" you also referred too is totally out of place in the case of RKC/Wales: the college is Validated by the University of Wales and UoW degrees and this makes them recognised Worldwide. Again (sorry to repeat myself on this) the conspiracy theory that the UoW does exercise poor oversight makes no sense: this would imply that the University is awarding degrees to individuals that do not deserve one and this is a serious allegation.

 

So you seem to say that claiming bogus accreditation is not misleading and dishonest? I disagree with that. Your assertion that I would have to visit AICS before making such a conclusion doesn't make sense to me.

What did I say? Perhaps you're confusing me with someone else? If you're questioning whether or not it is true that AICS claimed bogus accreditation right up to the day that they received DETC accreditation then fine believe what you want.

I think that you may be confusing me with someone else?

Please reread my last comment. Where did I make any judgement on AICS except for their advertising practice of claiming bogus accreditation? What good would visiting AICS do in evaluting whether or not such a claim is dishonest? Did you even read my last comment before responding?

The point was NOT that RKC/Wales was or was not a mill. The point I tried to make was that your "mill speak" arguments were not at all convincing. It does not follow that just because your arguments were weak that your conclusion is incorrect. I never tried to argue for or against the conclusion.

 

I'm not particularly interested in getting into ego-battles with a guy who apparently lives to defend his school. I've already explained what my concerns about the Wales validation unit are and posted links to some old threads. Any Degreeinfo readers who are interested can read that stuff and then make up their own minds.

Robert Kennedy College's relevance to this particular thread is kind of moot anyway, since RKC is no longer listed among the DETC applicants.

http://www.detc.org/new_applicants.html

 

I have to pass on the AICS matter as I do not know that school well enough. This said it is now DETC accredited: a long discussion on what they did/or did not years ago under a different ownership (as suggested by Mary) makes no sense.

I think we are on two different pages: I do not have to convince you NOR does any of the UOW/RKC graduate has to convince you or any employer about the validity of a University of Wales degree. You need to consider moving on from the this denial and recognised the obvious: studies at RKC lead to an accredited and worldwide recognised degree issued by the second largest British University.

All the rest is just irrelevant and your suggestion that myself or other students have to convince you that the UoW degree (through studies at RKC) is valid is simply ridiculous. Your suggestions that the University of Wales should have less partners or that the partnerships are not legitimate and with light scrutiny are certainly not convincing at all and it does sound to me as clear "denial speak" (e.g. it is DETC accredited? Regional? British State University? It doesn't matter, it has to be a mistake because I feel so) and readers will clearly see that none of your affirmations against RKC or the University of Wales are backed by facts.

 

I can assure you that there is no ego battle. I simply replied to the initial post of Chip that was basically insulting the College and the University I am studying at by spreading misinformed views on the UoW Validation operations.

None of the University of Wales students (direct or indirect) has or will have to defend its credentials. Whomever suggested otherwise in this forum is simply wrong.

I have no no interest too in discussing *your* personal concerns (whatever this means) about the University of Wales: the programmes at validated centres, like Robert Kennedy, are validated and result in a University of Wales award.

What you privately think about their process is just your opinion but making it sound as the University of Wales is collapsing an their validation process is dubious is not fair to the current students. No justification, no truth and no personal opinions: just plain facts. I agree no point in dragging this forever.

 

Does DegreeInfo have an official position or opinion on this matter? From what I see there are many opinions here on the matter.