Accreditation Poll

Is State Approval Good or Bad

From two different threads by the same people:

First from "Define a Degree Mill"

Effective State Approval is bad!

Then from "Accreditation Poll":

State Approval is good!

So if the state approves of your school it is good, if for what ever reason (primarily the school never applied) it doen't it is bad.

How about a voluntary system where each school can submitt their programs to an independnet unbiased source and have them evaluated and determine if they are any good?

Hey what, that already exists!

By the way i agree with the earlier post abou the wording of the poll. I have two B&M degrees and now working on a DL degree. So I voted in the B&M bachealors and masters lines.

 

Perhaps I too have confused shills? Please correct my current understanding.

1. You have a CCU DBA? You never attended any degree mill, e.g., K-W?

2. You were apparently unaware of what the term "peer" meant within the context of a dissertation defense?

3. You have said that K-W is not a degree mill but that the "big 3" were degree mills and you have been unable to explain the apparent inconsistency?

4. You made physical threats against either Gus or I (sorry I forget which) at about the same time that Gus was physically threatened by plcscott?

5. Whenever kf5k pops up in a thread you seem to pop up right after to lend support. (I confuse you two and according to Bruce's post, I'm not the only one.)

 

The right honorable gentleman is indebted to his memory for his jests, and to his imagination for his facts.
--Clio's Protest (Life of Sheridan Moore)

P.S. I don't have a degree from K-W either.

 

1. a. Yes b. No
2. I am very aware what peer review means, however the question was not addressed to me
3. No
4. No
5. Apparently Kf5k "James" agrees with some of my posts. And I have agreed with some of his but not all. So what? If someone is confused about who is who, then ask, rather than accuse. It is beginning to sound like the league of junior investigators...

 

Kirkland: Are you repeating Bear's Guide?

Bear: It's Bears' Guide.

Kirkland: ...not once (that I am aware of) has anyone provided any evidence that the BPPVE and the State of California are unable to properly supervise the schools within their jurisdiction. I'll stand corrected if this has been shown to be the case.

Bear: Well for starters, how about the fact that two years after Ernest Sinclair pleaded guilty to mail fraud and was sentenced to Terminal Island Federal Penitentiary, his California Pacifica University was still listed in the official annual California state directory.

Kirkland: If not, then I think it's time to rewrite the Myth Guide.

Bear: Would that be Cawolyn Myth, Ph.D., Greenwich?

 

I think CA state approved schools get a bum rap in some circles because officially they are not accredited and recognized by the US DOE. CA uses the term "institutional approval" and I have presented a lot of information about the extent of what that means. It is essentially accreditation but cannot be labeled as such. I don't know of any other State that has a similar system with such clear statutory language and processes regarding state approved schools. I disagree with the concept of "accredited = good, unaccredited = bad" since I know there is at least one State that has disproved that.

 

Thanks for your comments and the correct spelling of Bears' Guide. I don't see how one can conclude from the above that the BPPVE can't meet their charter (thus invalidating the CA State Approval process) as indicated by Bruce (see comment earlier). Are you suggesting or stating unequivocally that the BPPVE is not meeting its statutory responsibilities? Have there been any official findings to that effect? Anectodal references and inferences notwithstanding.

Just a figure of speech, no reference to any actual guide. Cawolyn? ...tough name to pronounce, sounds like Caroline after 4 too many...

 

Properly supervising means meeting their statutory responsibilities.

In cases of violation to the approval statutes, the State is required to notify said school and conduct a 24 month probationary period to observe the necessary compliance. If noncompliant after that period of time, actions to close the school are undertaken.

The BPPVE has been up and running every time I tried it. Use this link:

http://www.bppve.ca.gov

I think there will be embarrassments in any institutional body from time to time. That in and of itself is not indicative of ineffectiveness or lack of quality.

 

Re: abandon ship...!!

You should try reading for comprehension, because I've answered your question at least twice. You wanted an example of how thew BPPVE is overworked and underfunded, and I gave you one. They ordered Columbia Pacific to close, and the school ignored them. The BPPVE couldn't do much about it. If that isn't an example of being ineffective, I don't know what is.

Add John's excellent example of California Pacifica should be the icing on the cake.

 

I was amused by the fact that I'm not the only one that confuses Kirkland and kf5k. There was no accusation or anything else insidious intended.



BTW, assuming that CCU becomes accredited, should we expect to see an about face on your position of accredited versus unaccredited?

 

Re: Re: abandon ship...!!

You should try answering definitively. Sorry, your example is inferential and has already been refuted. John's example is also inferential. Furthermore, the BPPVE wasn't "ignored"... they were fought in court and the BPPVE was upheld through several appeals. Here is an example you should be familiar with... would you say the judicial system is invalid because the defendant exercises an appeal process? Or because serious cases can take a long period of time? Of course not. I think it is obvious your response does not support your argument. What will support your point is providing official findings that the BPPVE isn't doing its job, not this loosey-goosey stuff about how long the legal process takes.

 

You are a riot!! You sure looked like you were beginning to get paranoid about it... glad you're over it now.

I don't know Bill, do you ever think you'll teach that one-trick pony of yours to jump?

 

Re: Re: Re: abandon ship...!!

The fact that you don't like them and they don't support your position doesn't make them inferential or refuted.

The BPPVE, theoretically, has oversight authority over unaccredited schools operating in California. They ordered Columbia Pacific to close immediately. They ignored this order and kept operating in violaton of the order. That's called being ignored, except, apparently, in your reality.

In my city, if the Board of Health orders a restaurant to close immediately, it's closed immediately. The license is taken off the wall and the proprietors are arrested if they continue operating. That's because the Board of Health is well funded and staffed, and have the resources to back-up their orders. Apparently the BPPVE doesn't. If Columbia Pacific thought they were being wronged, they should have ceased operations and then appealed.

 

That's nice, albeit irrelevant.

My remarks werent concerned with whether or not the BPPVE is meeting its statutory responsibilities. Rather, they addressed "kf5k's" (and your own?) apparent belief that state approval is equivalent to accreditation, and by implication, that there's no such thing as a non-accredited school in a state that requires some kind of state approval as a condition of legal operation.

I gave you several reasons why that equivalence is unlikely. They ranged from Californians' own opinions of their state-approved schools, through the fact that even in the best of times the BPPVE approves schools that would have little chance of being accredited, to the fact that currently these are not the best of times for the BPPVE.

Your point above was also addressed in the Columbia Pacific example. This seems to have been the only state approved school shut down in recent years by BPPVE court action, and that only was successful after extended litigation. The BPPVE simply doesn't have the resources to repeat that kind of battle over and over.

 

Or that they tolerate schools that operated from California without approval, like Kennedy-Western and Century (according to its founder as reported by Bear).

Or that they tolerate schools that have a couple of programs under California Approval while offering everything else imaginable under Hawaiian licenses.

Or that they work not for the Department of Education, or the Board of Regents, or some other academic sector, but for the Department of Consumer Affairs.

 

You seem to be arguing for its equivalence with recognized accreditation, an assertion that I don't consider credible.

It's amazing that the more distant people are from California, the more they seem to worship the place. You might try looking at New York state's approval mechanism. You might also look at the list of Oregon approved schools. Much as some people on this board love beating up the ODA, Oregon seems more selective on the kind of schools that they approve.

You are fighting with windmills, because I don't think that anyone has said that "accredited = good, unaccredited = bad".

I've personally spent considerable time and effort on addressing that, with I believe some success. I've certainly done more to argue for the academic credibility of (some selected) California approved schools than anyone else on Degreeinfo (including you).

But it's simply ridiculous to suggest that "unaccredited (in California) = accredited = good", which is what you seem to be doing. That's far too sweeping and uncritical a generalization. I don't believe that there is any credible reason to believe it, and there's certainly considerable reason to doubt it.

What people have to do, if they really want to address state approved schools realistically, is examine them on a case by case basis, looking closely at each school's individual characteristics and at the kinds of situations where the educations that it offers can best be employed.

 

I guess I could try.

Okay Kirkland, here's a new trick for you. Repeat after me,

"I'm proud of my DBA and accept the fact it is from an unaccredited school. I understand that many may consider my DBA to be a phony and I understand that it doesn't have the utility of an accredited DBA but I worked hard for it and I believe that my alma mater, CCU, is one of the better unaccredited schools in the country. I assume that my belief will even be verified once CCU is accredited by DETC. I will be pleased when that happens because then I will no longer have to live in denial and can even love Alan Contreas and the ODA. "

 

Gentlemen, I think it is time to move on to other posts and get our other jobs done. I've had a chance to provide a good deal of information to you and for the record and you have had a chance to represent yourselves and your various opinions. I thank those who have maintained an academic level to the discussion.

 

I appreciate the information you have presented, and the vigor you have shown in defending those views. Your experiences in education were well explained and supported by facts.

To regret one's own experiences is to arrest one's own developement. To deny one's own experiences is to put a lie into the lips of one's own life. It is no less than a denial of the soul.
-- Oscar Wilde

 

The politics of newspeak

Yes, I think we should change the terms that we use for these types of institutions. Here's my proposal:

clear degree mill = plusungood
unaccredited = ungood
state approved = good
nationally accredited = plusgood
regionally accredited = doubleplusgood

Of course, then we would have to settle that raging debate regarding, "What does 2+2 equal..."