Why isn't regional accreditation enough for a DL degree to be accepted by a B&M?

LOL
ohhhhh a change gonna come

 

Precedence for what? Knowing how to spell precedence? Or giving people reckless hope that a DETC PhD will be considered equal to an RA one given the right lawsuit?

 

Man, my thread has gone down such a rabbit trail.

 

That is the chance that we all take when we post our questions here, my friend

Frankly, RA should be enough for acceptance. For transferring credits, it usually is. For getting a job, well...as we see, a lot of factors enter into the picture.

 

Don't expect me me to adopt your conclusions. The only point you have addressed that relates to my argument thus far is on "interstate commerce." My rebuttal was very clear, I view programs being offered by schools through their websites that reach nationally into every state and the money being exchanged for those programs, as fitting into interstate commerce.

Furthermore, I have already shown that NA degrees raise a federal question of law, how that issue could be heard by a federal court through diversity jursdiction and the applications minimum contacts. My argument ends there.

The only one that seems to be harping about professional licensure relating to nursing, education and accounting is YOU. Try sticking with what I said, instead passing off your assertions as my arguments.

Since you are the one raising the issue of state licensed occupations, you have the burden of proving it. Not me. It makes no difference to me if its a RA or NA degree, the holders should be treated equally with respect to the recognition of those credentials.

And, likewise.

 

Are these programs a part of interstate commerce? Sure. That's not the question. The question is whether the state is burdening interstate commerce somehow in relation to their actions regarding these schools. Your argument seems to be that if every private employer doesn't interview a DETC graduate, the states have somehow wronged the DETC programs. That's an interesting argument.

Question 1: Under what existing law would the states mandate an interview schedule for DETC graduates by private employers?

No, you have not. What you've done is take one legal definition and morph it into some weird argument that DETC school graduates face discrimination based on interstate commerce laws. No, a state may not prohibit a DETC school based on its state of origin while allowing another DETC school to operate but a state MAY say 'Those degrees are not suitable for XYZ'. Totally the state's choice. Otherwise, TX would never be able to prohibit distance learning courses for the CPA exam.

No, you RAN from the professional licensing argument because it's an example of HOW you're wrong. Every day, states say "Degree XYZ qualifies but this one does not" and the federal government has never intervened.

I really think this is a reckless argument to be frank. You've yet to show how DETC graduates would be considered a 'class', how state licensing or private employers could be charged with violating interstate commerce laws by not approving of DETC graduates or anything else really. Whom exactly would be sued by the government for burdening interstate commerce in your example?

Strengthen your argument.

Question 2: Who's the plaintiff? Who's the defendant?

Question 3: Are you saying that DETC schools should be allowed to operate or that its graduates should be granted specific rights to interview for a job?

Question 4: And what would the mechanism for enforcing this right to interview be? And how would private employers respond to this? Do they need to establish a quota for interviews by colleges in their area?

Alternatively, admit you're wrong if you can't answer the above questions.

My expectation: your response will be a restating of your previous arguments while answering none of the above questions. I also fully expect you to say "I don't have to argue further than I have..."

And you're right, you don't. But your argument is vague and flawed.

 

I never raised any argument about private employers. It is a fabrication on your part.

This is a strawman argument to divert the issue from what I actually said, that schools offering online programs that reach into every state fits into interstate commerce. Thus, it raises a federal question.

This is another strawman argument in which you are raising the issue of professional licensing to avoid my central argument, which is:

1. NA degrees raise federal questions of law under 34 C.F.R. 602

2. Schools offering online programs to out-of-states students would be subject to federal diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 1332

3. The issue of minimum contacts (International Shoe)

4. The issue of internet jurisdiction (Zippo Mfr. Co.).

All of these preceding points refute the presumption that NA degrees are just a state issue and could not be heard by a federal court. That is the crux of my argument.

Had you actually bothered to read my first post on this thread, you would have known that I don't think that a "DL graduates with poor academic scores should be accepted into a RA program." Thus, your notion on professional licensure is rediculous, since DL graduates with poor academic records wouldn't meet the burden of such licensing requirements.

This is another strawman argument. I never said any such thing on state licensing or private employers. It is a fabrication on your part, instead of conceding the point that schools offering programs that reach into every state WOULD fit into interstate commerce (my argument).

My having to restate my previous arguments is largely the result of your superficial strawman arguments, since you seem unable to refute my main premise that NA degrees raise a federal question of law.

I find that amusing coming from someone that relies on fallacies for arguments.

 

Oh, I've read it because you re-post it with fury whenever someone brings up anything even vaguely related.

By the way, you never answered my simple questions. You keep writing this is a 'matter of federal law' but 'what' is a matter of federal law escapes you. And you and I both know why...

Although I do admit you've made some progress because it seems that you've now admitted that neither private employers nor licensing bodies can be forced to admit DETC graduates. So whom exactly do you advocate the federal government sue. For something to be a class action, someone has to be sued.

So who's the defendant. Tell me, as you would a child, whom you advocate the federal government sue in this class action of yours. Is it random states?

And how would that would benefit DETC graduates? And what would the federal government sue the states to do exactly? Is there some cash award you think the states owe DETC graduates? Or is there some performance you seek? You've written that 'States should be forced to recognize these credentials as equal'. How would that recognition happen? You want a notice on the highway? Billboard? What exactly?

You're good at spitting out random statements like 'THIS IS A MATTER OF FEDERAL LAW' but that's not how the law really works. For something to really go to court, there usually is the matter of XX vs. YY to resolve.

In other words, I've never seen Don King promote a fight entitled TBA vs. Some Guy.

So strengthen your argument. Come back in plain English and explain whom the federal government should sue and what the award should be (cash or performance) and what would it be based on.

Or admit you're wrong. You're getting there. We've already crossed private employers off the list. And I think licensing boards as well. So I'm curious how you're going to improve the career prospects of DETC graduates...

But you have an agenda and although I apologize to Bill D., I think cats like you should be confronted whenever you're allowed to go on and on and on with these types of arguments.

So, plain English, whom does the federal government sue in your class action lawsuit?