Wanted: Diploma Mill Victims

John Bear suggested that I post this message. I'm writing an article for Context Magazine and would like to hear from people who have been victims of Diploma Mill or Fake University scams. Please email me ASAP at:

[email protected]

 

Originally posted by netwriter:
I'm writing an article for Context Magazine and would like to hear from people who have been victims of Diploma Mill or Fake University scams.

As soon as I saw this, I couldn't help but think of our friend Earon, a beautiful person who did legitimate work while enrolled in Columbia Pacific and wound up with a degree mill degree, a situation that anyone would find saddening. And with this thought I have a feeling of relief about the immanence of Harcourt Bites coming down. Because as much as it was needed to sound an alert about the many turds swimming in Harcourt's cream pitcher, there are undoubtedly people doing legitimate educational work for and through Harcourt. (Note to PaulC: This kind of bilateral stance does not weaken my arguments against Harcourt - quite the contrary. It is your shameless "Nothing at all possibly wrong with Harcourt" argument that is weakened by lack of perspective and objectivity. [I am of course paraphrasing, not quoting Paul.])

I can only hope Harcourt will learn to change their evil ways and start providing the community with a sound educational product that won't hurt people down the road. (I'm not gonna hold my breath waiting, though.) And I feel the same exact way about the start-up MIGS, although I wouldn't feel sad if Rich got a degree mill doctorate, as he has had plenty of opportunity to do as one poster suggested and earn a respectable doctorate elsewhere while MIGS gets its sheepdip together.


------------------
H. Piper
http://harcourtbites.tripod.com

 

Mr. Cooper will learn that there is a diversity of opinion on what constitutes a diploma mill. When Earon Kavanagh earned his degree, Columbia Pacific U was approved by the state of California: not nearly as useful as regional accreditation, but still useful to many graduates (who, for instance, can take degree-requiring state licensing exams in some fields).

 

Thanks for the info. Can you put me in touch with Earon?

 

Wow! Now below lies an interesting block quote. The structure of the text below has a built-in invitation to either agree with its statements or defend Columbia Pacific. I won't do either, but I will present some facts.

I have never on any occasion in five years of posting and reading alt.ed.distance referred to myself as a "victim" of Columbia Pacific nor have I referred to their curriculum and existence as a dubious degree program. I have referred to the "Columbia Pacific debacle", and other related phrases. And I have attempted to deconstruct the entire dubioud relationship between them and the CPPVE. I certainly did legitimate work, far beyond in both breadth and depth what most do for a masters degree. See, for example, some stuff on my currently-under-reconstruction website http://www.home.portal.ca/~EaronKavanagh

The Columbia Pacific situation with California is and remains far too complex to
dismiss CPU merely as a degree mill. Still, I won't recommend them or any "institution" that is not regionally accredited for a host of reasons that dictate that unaccredited schools are not in consumers' best interests.
And, for the benefit of consumers and to keep a thorn in the asses of CPU's owners, it is important to regard them as having degree mill status, and issuing a BIG CAVEAT until and if they get their shit together.

I have been investigating the CPU/CPPVE/BPPVE debacle for close to five years to try and ascertain what occurred. Despite CPU's current reputation it is important to note that for many years CPU and its programs were approved for over a decade by the California Department of Education and described and certified by that regulatory body as 'equivalent in quality to institutions that are accredited and recognized by the US Dept. of Education' (I do have copies of such certificates) and other documentation.

After the Private Postsecondary Reform Act of 1989 was implemented in 1991 CPU was grandfathered in as reapproved until a new site visit was scheduled for 1995/1996. The PPRA of 1989 dictated in part that California schools were to switch to a taught curriculum and the granting of credit for prior experience was to be curtailed strongly. There is documented evidence that CPU was attempting to change with the new regulations.

Meanwhile, in 1996 the CA Senate signed a bill extending the life of CPPVE until 2002 -the vote count was something like 70 to 1 in favor of the Bill. The CA Governor refused to sign the Bill, stating that there were too many complaints that the CPPVE had been waging an unfair vendetta on many institutions. There is rumor that an official from the U of Phoenix was part and parcel of the above goings-on.

In late 1995 (I think it was 1995)a site visit was made at the CPU offices. A high level member who was part of that visiting team testified in court that the director of the CPPVE instructed the team to fail CPU, no matter what it discovered. The site visit lasted a mere 1/1/2 days, and all previous site visits of CPU were 3 1/2 days. All previous site visits were passed (I am told this on the site visits by Les Carr, CPU's president, and cannot yet verify it).

The CPPVE was to go out of business by December of 1997. I am told that the last meeting was convened specifically to put the paperwork in place to close down CPU. CPU fought and lost all appeals at the state court right up to last fall (2000). They have gone on to Federal Court to continue the fight. This is a long long saga which has not ended. It is still too soon to conclude much. Meanwhile CPU also started a new corporation in Montana and is attempting to reorganize from there. There is talk of regional accreditation but I and many alumni will believe only measurable actions (Show Us The Money!!)and we are quite vocal about that.

Having said the above, no student should have to go through any of the above, and in my opinion, the state is culpable in that if CPU was indeed a degree mill why did the state certified them as a quality institution for so many years and thus mislead the public? CPU may also be culpable in that they might not have been willing to change or demonstrated change with the new regulations. I cannot verify this as of yet.
CPU's catalogues and syllabus reveal that changes were indeed made. One alumni that worked as a faculty mentor told me that the CPPVE would isue new rules, and students would have to do extra academic work, even after completing all academic work that was agreed to previously when they started their program. I was subject to this some time ago, and had to do an extra independent learning project (which was easy because I had accumulated a huge bibliograpgy and notes).

A group of 12-13 alumni who teach in major universities sent a letter of concern the the CA governor in 2000. The governor's office directed it back to the DCA. The group then sent another (long) letter to the DCA, outlining concerns and asking other important questions. None of the concerns or questions were addressed by the DCA's representative in her reply letter.

I continue to work in my field and am respected for my knowledge and abilities. I am collaborating with some British academics on papers for a journal, and am today uploading a paper for submission to this major British journal, on social constructionism and virtual communities as constituting a model for non-virtual organizational theory. It looks like the paper will be accepted, but who knows. It will be on my website in a couple of weeks.

With references from some of my past collaborators, including at least one who is widely known in distance education, I am currently applying to U. of London's Ind./Org. Psychology Masters. So, while the CPU program has been quite helpful, as was mentioned here, I have a degree that is currently from a school that (currently) has degree mill status. Kinda like buying internet stocks as opposed to blue chip (RA) stocks - can anyone relate to that?

I (with several others, many of them professors in traditional universities)am currently a major and outspoken voice in the CPU alumni and possibly a major pain in the ass for the CPU administration. The interesting thing that I am experiencing lately is that I am not using the degrees. This opens up a whole other topic on who has rights to knowledge and knowledge-production.
It always blows academics away when a person who doesn't use a degree is able to play their game and sometimes surpass them at it. Which them opens up another topic on the value of degrees in the first place. But, to conclude, a degree, while having value for the learner, is ultimately a commodity which is traded for potential-to-profit. Taken in this vein it has to be rock solid. RA in the USA or the equivalent in other countries is the only way to go.

 

Originally posted by Earon:
Wow!...So, while the CPU program has been quite helpful, as was mentioned here, I have a degree that is currently from a school that (currently) has degree mill status.

Hi Earon! Sorry, I do have a bad habit of generalizing for brevity. I'm glad you aren't willing to play the role of victim. Still, I think you have an extremely interesting story and perspective for "netwriter".

 

Well, first of all "netwriter" claims to want to talk with people who have been ripped off by "Diploma Mill or Fake University scams". I'm not sure how long you have been lurking and posting on alt.ed.distance (prior to this site) but the terms "diploma mill" and "fake university scams" have been usually reserved for illegal entities that sell fake diplomas. "Degree mill" and "less-than-wonderful" have been reserved for so-called institutions calling themselves "universities" and awarding the "degree" for less-than the normal work required for a degree. Let's keep the distinctions in place.

I don't know how the legal system works in the USA, but Dr. Les Carr, the principle owner of CPU is extremely litigious, and if netwriter calls CPU a diploma mill or fake school don't be surprised if there is a lawsuit. Les is part owner of SUI, which got a nasty article written about it by the National Post in the spring of 2000. SUI's owners immediately started legal proceedings and won an out-of-court settlement, a retraction (and possibly an apology). John Bear was also misquoted by the author of this article.

You are certainly right - I do have an interesting story. But it is a complex story
involving a complex set of circumstances. And I'm not so sure that there are "any" innocent parties. Perhaps I'll know for sure when it all comes out in the wash of USA's Federal Court. In the meanwhile, to quote Molder of the X-Files, "The truth is out there"...... somewhere. Who knows, maybe I'll write a book on the whole matter + a little more, and make a nice profit. How about "Pitfalls, Detours, and Super-Highways: The Thinking Person's Guide to Distance and Non-traditional Higher Education".

Earon

 

"John Bear suggested that I post this message. I'm writing an article for Context Magazine and would like to hear from people who have been victims of Diploma Mill or Fake University scams. Please email me ASAP at: [email protected]" - netwriter

I think you would be surprised that there are more degree mill's victims than we can imagine. If you are interested in victims, maybe you should reach out little further such as cash incentive toward alt.education, a gift, or a meal as an exchange for their personal's stories.
I think most victims are in denial, embarrass, and upset. It sounds like an acoholic, isn't it?

Victor

 

Sorry, it would be inappropriate for me to "pay" an interviewee. I would think that, people who have been taken advantage of, would want to get the word out about such unethical practices, even if it is somewhat embarrassing.

 

It's important to realize also that sometimes people are victimized by writers who are purporting to convey their stories in the public press. This, of course, depends somewhat on what spin the writer employs to convey what message, and to what audience. I guess my next question would be "what's in it for you as the writer?", and the next question could be "how far are you going to go in your investigation"?, etc., etc.

Diploma mills are an interesting phenomena. I theorize momentarily that people who use diploma mills know exactly what they are getting - an immediate and phony degree in return for a specific amount. Perhaps John Bear could comment if he sees this. People using degreee mills are subject to a much greyer experience. For example, if CPU was a degree mill (as Levicoff has strongly asserted for at least five years) while it had full institutional approval (and certified as equivalent to a regionally accredited institution in quality), how would a prospective student ascertain this in the late 1980's?? Who else is responsible? And is the problem systemic, as Bear suggests when he reflects on states with less than wonderful regulations in place??
Just Musing ,
Earon

 

The problem is that a good percentage of these people are in denial. What percent is really not known. However, for the people that show up in a.e.d. it seems that much more often than not they are in denial.

Running a degree mill is a very strange crime because the fraud's victims are generally the most vocal supporters for the fraud. I think the general problem is that the victim's time/money/ego gets wrapped up in the degree. People will fight tooth and nail to try and save their investment.

Then there's also a percentage that knows they are buying a bogus degree and all they're really interested in purchasing is plausible deniability. They think that they're purchasing some kind of insurance policy against being caught for fraud. They are innocent of fraud in their own minds, it's all the fault of the degree mill operator.

Mr. Cooper, the category that you're apparently looking for is the purely innocent person that has ended up with a less than wonderful diploma. These type people seem to fall into Earon's category. A fellow that did the work but just at the wrong place. While he was doing the work it was not known to be the wrong place. I think that this category is probably smaller than the other two categories but it is just a pure guess on my part and I would very much welcome a more educated guess.

 

In my case, during much of the time spent at CPU (10 years) not only was the school not known to be the wrong place, it was considered to be the right place, the top of the unaccredited heap. It was headed by 3 highly credentialed individuals, two of which were past presidents of regionally accredited universities, and one of which was a Harvard grad (Dr. Richard Crews - psychiatrist). And it looked like it was going places. Who could imagine that these three amigos would risk their reputation and credentials by running a degree mill?

As I have mentioned in past posts, CPU's credibility was declared in California state literature on the school (CPU), in a book on alternative education published by Empire State College (of SUNY fame), and attested to by our own John Bear in his books. If there was something below standard going on at CPU it was not suspect to anyone other than Levicoff until 1997 (based on documents I have gathered and famialiarity with levicoff's posts going back to early 1996).

Even recently, John Bear has stated that he has never had any reason to believe that CPU's students' work was below par (and John has attested that he has seen some of the academic work by students). And considering the murky circumstances leading up to CPU's current status, if they were a degree mill all along, then 9000 or so unsuspecting individuals were taken in by them, while an unsuspecting government, education experts, and public looked on. Steve Levicoff has accumulated some cases that indicate some trouble with CPU some time ago. Netwrier might want to contact Steve to see if this info is still available.

Despite CPU's difficulties I still have accumulated a lot of my own research and written papers. It is useful in many academic circumstances, and will most certainly be utilized in the future. Personally, I have endeavored to take what is/was valuable and cut my losses on the rest of it. It's time to move on and yet it's not really over until the fat lady sings (or something like that).

[PARTIAL QUOTE]Originally posted by Bill Huffman:
..............large portion snipped:
Mr. Cooper, the category that you're apparently looking for is the purely innocent person that has ended up with a less than wonderful diploma. These type people seem to fall into Earon's category. A fellow that did the work but just at the wrong place. While he was doing the work it was not known to be the wrong place. I think that this category is probably smaller than the other two categories but it is just a pure guess on my part and I would very much welcome a more educated guess.

[/QUOTE]

 

Shameless? Since paraphrasing is simply a restatement of a text or passage in another form, and since I never said "Nothing at all possibly wrong with Harcourt" in any form, you clearly are not paraphrasing. You are embellishing out of context in an attempt to bolster your position. Shame on you.

My perspective is wide and my objectivity unencumbered by any association with Harcourt. I have no case for or against them. It is of no personal concern to me whether they succeed or fail. You, on the other hand, are personally vested in actions that challenge their ethics. Objectivity is certainly not the cornerstone of that picture.

Since I have no personal attachment to Harcourt, I would be quite happy to drop this theme. However, I am not willing to idly watch you take artistic license and, as you describe it, make "generalizations for the sake of brevity" at my expense.

 

Earon writes, I theorize momentarily that people who use diploma mills know exactly what they are getting - an immediate and phony degree in return for a specific amount. Perhaps John Bear could comment if he sees this.

Clearly people who use diploma mill degrees (and my Monster.com searches this month make clear there are thousands and thousands of them) are divided into two categories: those that are genuinely duped, and those who know what they are doing and hope to fool others.

What we don't know are the percentages. Is it 90/10 or 10/90 or somewhere in between?

And I guess it's really a continuum, not a dichotomy. "Well I had my concerns, but I thought it was worth a try..."

Five or six years ago, when I was the only person publicly declaring Columbia State a diploma mill, my mail was heavily weighted to the "You're wrong! view. As major media started reporting on them, I saw a gradual shift to the "Oh my God, what have I done" correspondence, although even now there are people either in total denial or total maintaining the fiction. Good Morning America visited (unannounced) three such people, in positions of high visibility and much responsibility, and I certainly hope some of this makes it onto the air -- tentatively scheduled for this Thursday, but, as something that isn't breaking news, susceptible to postponement or cancellation if something really important, like the capture of Osama Bin Laden, or the reconciliation of Tom and Nicole happens.

I'll try to keep you posted.

 

Speaking of Monster, I tried earlier to search through the resumes, but they require one join as an employer. I'd rather not misrepresent myself. Is there another way to search through its database of resumes? I couldn't figure it out

 

Originally posted by PaulC:
Since paraphrasing is simply a restatement of a text or passage in another form, and since I never said "Nothing at all possibly wrong with Harcourt" in any form, you clearly are not paraphrasing.

Paul, you are so full of it. Do you remember saying my arguments completely lacked in substance (while ignoring an HHE administrator's instructions to tell Harcourt's "p----- off students" that Harcourt tends to "lie a lot"?

My perspective is wide and my objectivity unencumbered by any association with Harcourt.

Yeah, right. Excepting the fact that your wife has a history with ICS/Harcourt...

I have no case for or against them.

Could have fooled me.

You, on the other hand, are personally vested in actions that challenge their ethics.

That would be your limited, challenged, and hypocritical perspective. Someone with their eyes open would notice that I used actual quotes of actual Harcourt administrators to prove my case.

Since I have no personal attachment to Harcourt,

Here we go again...

I would be quite happy to drop this theme.

This is something else I'm not gonna hold my breath waiting for.


------------------
H. Piper
http://harcourtbites.tripod.com

 

Paul, you are so full of it. Do you remember saying my arguments completely lacked in substance (while ignoring an HHE administrator's instructions to tell Harcourt's "p----- off students" that Harcourt tends to "lie a lot"?

Don't remember because, once again, your generalization is, well, a generalization. The only reference that can be made to me regarding the "substance" of your arguments have specifically to do with your still unsupported position on the target market of Harcourt students. It can't be generalized like you would like, because it isn't correct. And I have never discounted any quote you have attributed to any Harcourt official. Nothing I have posted regarding your Harcourt rants could be interpreted as saying that there is "Nothing at all possibly wrong with Harcourt". I simply haven’t said it nor inferred it. Don’t extend to others your propensity to generalize. Not everyone is a fellow practitioner.

Yeah, right. Excepting the fact that your wife has a history with ICS/Harcourt...

My wife has never taken a course from Harcourt. I mention two schools in the post to which you are referring, ICS and PDCI. My ex-father in law, from 22 years ago, took a course at ICS and my wife, much more recently, took a course at PCDI, not ICS/Harcourt. So, as I said, I have never had any personal association with Harcourt, and neither has my wife, much less a "history".


Someone with their eyes open would notice that I used actual quotes of actual Harcourt administrators to prove my case.

You attempted to bolster your position by stating unequivocally that Harcourt markets to the poor and the uneducated. And by doing this they could more easily take advantage of these poor helpless consumers. This despite the fact that the two Harcourt enrollees you yourself cited were described by you as "obviously educated", the example of my ex-father in law who had a Bachelor’s degree, and the individual posting to the group that enrolled in Harcourt were all educated. Additionally, I provided a citation to a study that clearly contradicts your position and states that a high percentage of enrollees have college degrees. You failed to provide anything that would refute that. You did provide additional opinion, but nothing that would remotely resemble supporting evidence. This is the objectivity in question.

This is something else I'm not gonna hold my breath waiting for.

Lest I remind you, by fabricating a position that you called a paraphrase of my comments, you are the one that brought this back to life.

 

Netwriter,
If you want to use information about any degree mill victim for your book, article, journal or whatever, you need to know if there are victims (with proof). IMHO, you need to do a study, a research, or a report that would help and support Dr. John Bear or Dr. Steve Levicoff published books. In my opinion, if there is no victim, degree mill may not be illegal. It is not always true, though.
Any necessary study will re-enforce the credibility of any unbiased conclusion or opinion in any published source.
My suggestion of incentive is not that much comparing to the valuable information that you will have and use that supports any claim. You have to show the victims that you care so that they would come forward. You would be surprised in percentage.
Is "monnies" your problem? If you set up the anti-degree mill foundation, I am sure there are people would send in contribution $$ for their supports. I would. Maybe, your idea is good but not usable at this time. How about 5 years from now?

Victor

 

Originally posted by me:
Do you remember saying my arguments completely lacked in substance (while ignoring an HHE administrator's instructions to tell Harcourt's "p----- off students" that Harcourt tends to "lie a lot"?

Originally posted by PaulC:
Don't remember because, once again, your generalization is, well, a generalization.

Wrong. PaulC, this is your life:

PaulC: I'm just waiting to see a response with substance.

And later...

PaulC: I'm afraid the only difference between my arguments and yours are that I provide verifiable and citable reference, you do not...You still don't cite anything credible... [/B]

(On a side note, PaulC, your repeated use of the term "generalization" after I used it describing my own posting style reminds me of an ancient Chinese saying: "A good phrase is a post in the dirt to which a jackass can be tethered for aeons.")

Back to this thread, PaulC continues:
[B} Nothing I have posted regarding your Harcourt rants could be interpreted as saying that there is "Nothing at all possibly wrong with Harcourt". [/B]

Really. After the Harcourt Bites group, you rank second in amount of Harcourt information posted in newsgroups such as this. In all of that, I would like you to show me one thing - just one - acknowledging that *anything* could be wrong with the Harcourt picture. Just one, PaulC.

My wife has never taken a course from Harcourt.

Okay, I'll take your word for that. I, and maybe Chip as well, had taken what you said earlier to mean she had.

You attempted to bolster your position by stating unequivocally that Harcourt markets to the poor and the uneducated. And by doing this they could more easily take advantage of these poor helpless consumers. This despite the fact that the two Harcourt enrollees you yourself cited were described by you as "obviously educated"...

This is not a contradiction, PaulC. Smart people get ripped off, too.

Lest I remind you, by fabricating a position that you called a paraphrase of my comments, you are the one that brought this back to life.

Hopefully, I shouldn't have to already remind you that unless you can show otherwise by providing a published quote from you that acknowledges any Harcourt defect within all of your ultra-defensive posts, that generalization of your position will enter the record as accurate.

 

Folks,

May I respectfully request that you take this discussion to private email?

It has strayed considerably from the original topic of "looking for diploma mill victims"

We may eventually set up a place for online arguments (and I'm as much of a contributor as anyone else to some of them) but for now, let's try to focus a little more on topics, rather than "I said/you said"

Thanks!