All state-approved degrees are legal and legitimate

If a restaurant gets a 99.9999999999 (A) and a greasy burger joint gets a 70.00000000001 (C)---both pass state inspection. Are they of equal quality?

 

Yakthumba offers a faulty dilemma. As Jeff and Russell point out, it isn't "all or nothing" regarding California-Approved schools.

Saying I'm "sympathetic" to them is an odd choice of words. I can recognize that their degrees have some value (an observable fact) and not like it (a value judgment). This isn't "admitting" anything. To do otherwise would exhibit bias despite the facts.

Posters like this choose their verbs and adjectives specifically to slant their takes. But the facts remain. While unaccredited schools' degrees enjoy some acceptance in the workplace, it can largely be attributed to ignorance. That is hardly a legacy upon which to build a school's academic reputation, and hardly a platform upon which to stand while shouting into the wind. But shout away.

 

Re: RE:State-approved degrees are legal and legitimate

===

I don't think anyone in this thread said that state approved degrees are illegal everywhere, in any context, and are worthless. I responded to your initial claim that such equalled RA degrees. They don't, but the result is not worthlessness but less worth.

 

Yakthumba: "Why is it that popular people get assasinated? Abe Lincoln, Zachery [sic] Taylor?..."

John Bear: Taylor died of cholera. And I think you're wrong on just about everything else, too.

Yakthumba: "If [state licensed schools] are not degree mills then why do we not accept them as legal and legitimate?

Bearpawa: Legal, yes in the state that licensed them. Worth spending time and/or money on? Generally not.

 

Bob Marley he die of canca, mon. No bullet still cry.

 

Now wait a minnut. Didn't Zachery Taylor die of acute gastroenteritis brought on by eating huge quantities of cucumbers and milk on a very hot day? Or am I thinking of Millard Filmore?

Nosborne, JD
(Who has ALWAYS avoided cucumbers and milk)

 

Re: RE:State-approved degrees are legal and legitimate

They are legal in some areas. Very similar to the fact that committing suicide is legal in many jurisdictions. Like suicide, just because it is legal it does not mean that it is a good idea.

Bill Dayson has already done a wonderful job addressing your attempt to confuse legal and legitimate. Please reread his response on that point.

Bill Dayson has already done a wonderful job addressing your attempt to confuse legal and legitimate. Please reread his response on that point.

To be fully legitimate within almost all contexts the answer is yes. RA is the normally accepted standard within the USA for institutions of higher learning.

No, not generally, RA is the normally accepted standard within the USA for instituions of higher learning.

 

Hey, we might be onto something, conspiracy-wise. Here are two consecutive listings on the very same website, 'timelines':

1850 Jul 4, President Zachary Taylor stood hatless in the sun for hours listening to long-winded speeches. He returned to the White House and attempted to cool off by eating cherries, cucumbers and drinking iced milk. Severe stomach cramps followed and it is likely that Taylor's own physicians inadvertently killed him with a whole series of debilitating treatments.

1850 Jul 9, The 12th president of the United States Zachary Taylor (b.1784) died of cholera at the age of 55 after serving only 16 months.

But there can be no doubt that he made possible the great Millard Fillmore, first and only president to turn down the honorary doctorate that Oxford offers to all outgoing US presidents.

John Bear
Founder
Millard Fillmore Institute

 

Obvious case of suicide.

Nosborne, JD

 

Re: Re: RE:State-approved degrees are legal and legitimate

Bill,

Are you suggesting via analogy that obtaining a state-approved degree (e.g., Wyoming) is somewhat like commiting professional suicide?

 

Re: Re: Re: RE:State-approved degrees are legal and legitimate

I believe that these are some fair analogies to be had.

A favorite tactic seems to be confusing legal and legitimate. Bill Dayson does a marvelous job in describing the logical fallacy of this. Since I'm not as smart or articulate plus I'm basically lazy, I must stoop to analogy.

 

Thanks for your correction.Zachary Taylor was not assasinated. Zachary died on July 9,1850 after only 16 months in office(Worldbook).But Abraham Lincoln in 1865,James Garfield in 1881, and William McKinley in 1901 and John F.Kennedy in 1963 were assasinated.

Now you guys are really confusing me.Bill Dayson confirms that state-approved degrees are legal in some places but they have less worth.Not worthless?John Bear says they are legal in the state that licensed them but not worth spending time and money on them.Worthless?

Bill Huffman says:Like suicide,just because it is legal,it does not mean that it is a good idea.

Your statement is not logical at all.The legality or illegality of suicide is irrelevent to people committing suicide.People commit suicide even if it is legal(or illegal) to commit suicide, it makes no difference to them.But people will certainly go for a legal degree than an illegal one and that makes a difference.And going for a legal degree is never a bad idea.I quote from Oregon Office of Degree Authorization(ODA) web page: "Credit earned at ODA-approved institutions may be more difficult to transfer unless the institution is also accredited. However,degrees earned at ODA-approved institutions are legitimate within Oregon and will be recognized by many other states."

Rich Douglas says:it is the marketplace and the higher learning institutions that are doing the ranking and recognition of these degrees.

Then you must accept that there are two kinds of marketserfect competition market and imperfect competition market(Economics). Did you know that the Justice Department flunked the Ivy League schools back in 1993:
Many college students thought that tuition was too high and financial aid too low(RA schools are really keen on federal financial aid).After conducting an investigation,the US Justice Department thought so,too.It brought an action against the eight Ivy League schools(Harvard,Cornell,Brown, Dartmouth,Columbia,University of Pennsylvania,Princeton, and Yale) and M.I.T.The Justice Department alleged that these schools had conspired and engaged in a horizontal restraint of trade in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act.For years the administrators of the Ivy League schools met annually to trade information about applicants seeking scholarships.They then agreed to offer scholarships to the students they thought would attend their school.Scholarships were not offered to those less likely to attend.The schools defended this practice as preventing "overlap",that is,certain students getting scholarship offers from many schools and other applicants receiving no scholarship offers.The schools figured this would save administrative costs as well as best serve the interests of the students.The Justice Department did not think so.It felt that this trading of information and agreements to offer scholarships only to specified students constituted price fixing by explicitly fixing the amount of scholarship money applicants were paid to attend school and asserted that this collegiate cartel was no different from any other cartel: it denied customers (students)the right to "comparison shop" just as they would for other services.The eight Ivy League schools, after weathering bad publicity,agreed to settle the case with the Justice Department.Under the terms of the consent decree,the schools agreed to no longer share financial aid information or discuss future tuition levels or faculty salaries with other schools.M.I.T. chose to fight the case in court and lost.The court found MIT guilty of price fixing and enjoined the challenged practices.Unbeleivable and unthinkable.I really think the Justice Department should also go after the state-approved schools.Just because they are legal they can't sell fraudulent degrees and swindle consumers.A grocery shop is legal, too,but it can’t sell rotten apples to consumers.

Yakthumba(Kirat)
Eklabya was a great Kirat prince and the best archer of his time.Once he asked his teacher what he wanted,and his teacher asked for his right thumb.Without hesitation,he cut off his right thumb and presented it to his teacher.

 

Thanks for your correction.Zachary Taylor was not assasinated. Zachary died on July 9,1850 after only 16 months in office(Worldbook).But Abraham Lincoln in 1865,James Garfield in 1881, and William McKinley in 1901 and John F.Kennedy in 1963 were assasinated.

Now you guys are really confusing me.Bill Dayson confirms that state-approved degrees are legal in some places but they have less worth.Not worthless?John Bear says they are legal in the state that licensed them but not worth spending time and money on them.Worthless?

Bill Huffman says:Like suicide,just because it is legal,it does not mean that it is a good idea.

Your statement is not logical at all.The legality or illegality of suicide is irrelevent to people committing suicide.People commit suicide even if it is legal(or illegal) to commit suicide, it makes no difference to them.But people will certainly go for a legal degree than an illegal one and that makes a difference.And going for a legal degree is never a bad idea.I quote from Oregon Office of Degree Authorization(ODA) web page: "Credit earned at ODA-approved institutions may be more difficult to transfer unless the institution is also accredited. However,degrees earned at ODA-approved institutions are legitimate within Oregon and will be recognized by many other states."

Rich Douglas says:it is the marketplace and the higher learning institutions that are doing the ranking and recognition of these degrees.

Then you must accept that there are two kinds of marketserfect competition market and imperfect competition market(Economics).Did you know that the Justice Department flunked the Ivy League schools back in 1993:
Many college students thought that tuition was too high and financial aid too low(RA schools are really keen on federal financial aid).After conducting an investigation,the US Justice Department thought so,too.It brought an action against the eight Ivy League schools(Harvard,Cornell,Brown, Dartmouth,Columbia, University of Pennsylvania,Princeton, and Yale) and M.I.T.The Justice Department alleged that these schools had conspired and engaged in a horizontal restraint of trade in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act.For years the administrators of the Ivy League schools met annually to trade information about applicants seeking scholarships.They then agreed to offer scholarships to the students they thought would attend their school.Scholarships were not offered to those less likely to attend.The schools defended this practice as preventing "overlap",that is,certain students getting scholarship offers from many schools and other applicants receiving no scholarship offers.The schools figured this would save administrative costs as well as best serve the interests of the students.The Justice Department did not think so.It felt that this trading of information and agreements to offer scholarships only to specified students constituted price fixing by explicitly fixing the amount of scholarship money applicants were paid to attend school and asserted that this collegiate cartel was no different from any other cartel: it denied customers (students)the right to "comparison shop" just as they would for other services.The eight Ivy League schools, after weathering bad publicity,agreed to settle the case with the Justice Department.Under the terms of the consent decree,the schools agreed to no longer share financial aid information or discuss future tuition levels or faculty salaries with other schools.M.I.T. chose to fight the case in court and lost.The court found MIT guilty of price fixing and enjoined the challenged practices.Unbeleivable and unthinkable.I really think the Justice Department should also go after the state-approved schools.Just because they are legal they can't sell fraudulent degrees and swindle consumers.A grocery shop is legal, too,but it can’t sell rotten apples to consumers.

Yakthumba(Kirat)
Eklabya was a great Kirat prince and the best archer of his time.Once he asked his teacher what he wanted,and his teacher asked for his right thumb.Without hesitation,he cut off his right thumb and presented it to his teacher.

 

Thanks for your correction.Zachary Taylor was not assasinated. Zachary died on July 9,1850 after only 16 months in office(Worldbook).But Abraham Lincoln in 1865,James Garfield in 1881,and William McKinley in 1901 and John F.Kennedy in 1963 were assasinated.

Now you guys are really confusing me.Bill Dayson confirms that state-approved degrees are legal in some places but they have less worth.Not worthless?John Bear says they are legal in the state that licensed them but not worth spending time and money on them.Worthless?

Bill Huffman says:Like suicide,just because it is legal,it does not mean that it is a good idea.

Your statement is not logical at all.The legality or illegality of suicide is irrelevent to people committing suicide.People commit suicide even if it is legal(or illegal) to commit suicide, it makes no difference to them.But people will certainly go for a legal degree than an illegal one and that makes a difference.And going for a legal degree is never a bad idea.I quote from Oregon Office of Degree Authorization(ODA) web page: "Credit earned at ODA-approved institutions may be more difficult to transfer unless the institution is also accredited. However,degrees earned at ODA-approved institutions are legitimate within Oregon and will be recognized by many other states."

Rich Douglas says:it is the marketplace and the higher learning institutions that are doing the ranking and recognition of these degrees.

Then you must accept that there are two kinds of marketserfect competition market and imperfect competition market(Economics).Did you know that the Justice Department flunked the Ivy League schools back in 1993:
Many college students thought that tuition was too high and financial aid too low(RA schools are really keen on federal financial aid).After conducting an investigation,the US Justice Department thought so,too.It brought an action against the eight Ivy League schools(Harvard,Cornell,Brown, Dartmouth,Columbia, University of Pennsylvania,Princeton, and Yale) and M.I.T.The Justice Department alleged that these schools had conspired and engaged in a horizontal restraint of trade in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act.For years the administrators of the Ivy League schools met annually to trade information about applicants seeking scholarships.They then agreed to offer scholarships to the students they thought would attend their school.Scholarships were not offered to those less likely to attend.The schools defended this practice as preventing "overlap",that is,certain students getting scholarship offers from many schools and other applicants receiving no scholarship offers.The schools figured this would save administrative costs as well as best serve the interests of the students.The Justice Department did not think so.It felt that this trading of information and agreements to offer scholarships only to specified students constituted price fixing by explicitly fixing the amount of scholarship money applicants were paid to attend school and asserted that this collegiate cartel was no different from any other cartel: it denied customers (students)the right to "comparison shop" just as they would for other services.The eight Ivy League schools, after weathering bad publicity,agreed to settle the case with the Justice Department.Under the terms of the consent decree,the schools agreed to no longer share financial aid information or discuss future tuition levels or faculty salaries with other schools.M.I.T. chose to fight the case in court and lost.The court found MIT guilty of price fixing and enjoined the challenged practices.Unbeleivable and unthinkable.I really think the Justice Department should also go after the state-approved schools.Just because they are legal they can't sell fraudulent degrees and swindle consumers.A grocery shop is legal, too,but it can’t sell rotten apples to consumers.

Yakthumba(Kirat)
Eklabya was a great Kirat prince and the best archer of his time.Once he asked his teacher what he wanted,and his teacher asked for his right thumb.Without hesitation,he cut off his right thumb and presented it to his teacher.

 

Think I said worth less, but not worthless. Dr Bear is the expert, but I'd opine that were the state approved degree to have even very limited utility then it would not be worthless. But it would be worth less than the accredited as its acceptability has geographical and other circumstantial limits. One wonders if he who recites stories of ,{seemingly as meritorius , not stupid}, the amputation of thumbs to please mentors should question the logicality of acknowledging the limitations of California state approved degrees.

Besides, my Cherokee grandfather, Spotted Horse, could outshoot your prince Eklabya anyday

 

Re: Re:All state-approved degrees are legal and legitimate

It seems to me that you're argument has shifted. Earlier you seemed to be arguing that legal and legitimate had a much stronger connection. If the degree were legal then it must be legitimate. This is not true. While illegal casts a huge shadow over the legitimatcy of a degree, it is not true that legal implies legitimate. Suicide can be both legal and represent a poor decision, I believe this is a fair analogy that applies to that argument. The accepted standard within the USA for colleges/universities is RA. If one chooses to ignore this reality then one will be limiting the utility of their degree significantly.

 

Especially if the specific contest required the use of thumbs
Jack

 

This may be a stupid question. But if California was concerned about recognition of their degrees, why could they not apply for their state to be an accrediting body recognized by the department of education?

 

No. Bear reported that the opportunity you mention has been eliminated. New York remains the only state agency so recognized.

What makes you think California has such a concern? The state has never behaved in such a way. In fact, they've systematically gutted the Approval process, which used to have some meaning.

 

I don't believe that "California" has ever showed any real concern about CA-approved degrees being recognized. I don't believe that California is interested in being an accrediting body let alone being recognized by the department of education.