Guy with a fake degree lands job as Kansan publisher......

Still curious.

 

If you hadn't had been a smarta$$ when asking your question, I would have answered.

 

I really doubt Mr. Phillips would agree that his degree is fake, especially after all the work he did to receive it.

 

Not exactly. According to my research with HR managers, state approval resonates with them, even after reading an explanation that it is not the same as accreditation.

How acceptable various forms of institutional recognition were changed significantly from (a) when no descriptions were given to (b) after descriptions were given. In every instance, the GAAP-type moved higher and the non-GAAP moved lower. But state approval, while it moved lower, remained close to some forms of accreditation, including DETC and ACICS. This was not the case, however, for state licensure. (The descriptions for each distinguished them by whether or not the state evaluated and approved schools, or just licensed them.)

Bottom line: state approval seems to resonate with HR managers, even after reading a description about what it is and is not.

Of course, the major limitation in this is that there are some situations where degrees from state-approved schools are not "less acceptable"; they're not accepted at all. And let's not forget the perception factor. Finally, remember that about 99% of admissions officials at regionally accredited schools will not accept for admission degrees from state-approved schools.

Perhaps the above helps to explain why unaccredited schools persist. It isn't always because the employer doesn't know the school is unaccredited.

 

Ok, now I know you're pulling my leg. But that was good one.

 

Interesting, what I've seen many times is that when someone is told that a school is unaccredited they seem to either ask, "What is accreditation?" or they say "You mean a degree mill?"

I wonder if

1. My sample size is too small to draw any reasonable guesses from?
2. Human resource personal are significantly different from my unscientific sample?
3. "State approved" are words that illicit a significantly different reaction from "unaccredited"?
4. My own experience involved too much contamination from my own biases?

 

1. Possibly, but even a small sample begins to yeild trends.
2. This is a much more likely possibility. HR managers have to make decisions about this stuff, and I think they err on the side of caution.
3. Definitely.
4. I doubt it. While you certainly have judged this situation, that doesn't necessarily mean you've mis-judged it.

Remember, the proponents of these schools that post here place great value in the legality of them, talking about licensure, state approval, etc. They do it because it works.

I suspect (but did not directly measure) that employers would equate "unaccredited" with "diploma mill," while "state licensed" or "state approved" sounds more like "accredited." There are even instances where people have referred to these schools as "state accredited." That probably gets them over.

 

Rich,

For anyone to say that an approved school is state accredited is beyond what should be said, but I don't doubt that a few do. I find that simply saying that it's state licensed/approved and its location is sufficient. I almost never get asked, but if I do, I state the above, and that ends it. As schools under approved status usually operate under state statutes, primary authority, rather than under executive regulations, it carries great weight. Only a U.S. or state constitiution can void these statutes, or if a judge would rule that the statute is unconstitutional. When a school is licensed/approved it has legal as well as public perception weight. On the other hand if a state statute is negative towards these schools the negative statute would carry great weight, and would be difficult to get around, if pushed.

 

This has interesting elements of linguistics and cognition. I agree with Rich concerning the term "unaccredited". Marketing uses this psychology frequently as a product differentiator: "7UP the UnCola". The "un" prefix is designed to communicate deficiency or a state that does not exist eliciting a negative reaction and perception in the mind of the respondent. In a layperson's mind, when they hear "unaccredited" I believe their initial and sustained reaction will be to agree that said school is a degree mill. The problem with this form of communication is that it creates a binary condition. For instance, the term "unaccredited" does not allow the respondent (unless they are fully knowledgeable in the subject of education) to process other positive possibilities that can and do exist outside of accreditation such as "state approved" or "state certified" or "corporate certified". Therefore, most holders of state approved degrees will communicate the status of their degree in a positive form with information more cogent to the respondent than the term "unaccredited" conveys.

 

I agree with your comments, especially about the ( UN ) part. It conveys a very negative connotation, and is in fact incorrect when used in place of state approved. Approval is a form of evaluation. One may debate the level that this approval reaches, but not that at some level it exists. A person would be very foolish to describe their own educational accomplishment by a derogatory term ( Unaccredited). States license/approve schools, and their students certainly have the right to use that exact same description. To do otherwise would be a form of self destruction.

 

Interesting, would anyone care to explain the state of say Knightsbridge University? It is apparently not licensed or approved. Oh wait, I remember now, it's self-accredited. Just like K-W, it too claims to be self accredited, although K-W claims to go through the self accreditation process once a year. I get the impression that KU hasn't actually done that yet?

 

Easy. It, and K-W, are UN-universities.