Are all unaccredited schools degree mills

Is it true that it is illegal to to use a DETC-approved degree (such as from Columbia Southern University) in Oregon? If yes, then what does that say about the weakness or future of the DETC?????

Also, does this Oregon law apply to all "Clayton" schools, even the DETC-approved ACCIS ?????

 

This is not true. None of the DETC accredited schools are illegal. Here is the list:

http://www.osac.state.or.us/oda/unaccredited.html

 

I read the ACCIS website. Some ACCIS professors and administrators used to work for Chadwick. Yet, ACCIS is DETC-approved and Chadwick is not approved by the DETC. What a joke.
Just give your support to RA colleges and universities.

 

The Oregon statute allows only degrees that are accredited and recognized by the US DOE or approved by the ODA (against what published standards is not clear to me). The ODA has interpreted this to mean that everything else is illegal. I would be more concerned about the weakness or future of the ODA if anyone ever brings a constitutionality suit against them.

 

From the Oregon site:

"Degrees from these schools are accredited by DETC and are legal for use as general credentials in Oregon. However, these degrees cannot be used for some professions in Oregon, e.g., K-12 teaching or some public safety work. Credits from these schools may or may not transfer to accredited Oregon colleges; contact potential transfer schools to be sure."

 

RF:

Then according to ODA’s Alan C.: CCU is Substandard, the majority of SCUPS programs are Substandard, California Pacific is Substandard … K-W is in good company. However, as I said, no one has yet to ever be effectively prosecuted for using a Legally Conferred State Licensed Degree in OR. The one CC professor who graduated from Berne (which is not US State Licensed) still claims his PH.D, so where is the teeth in this law? It’s like a state banning Beer on Mondays, the law is on the books, but people will still drink.

The bottom line is K-W, CCU, PWU, Century, SCUPS, Central State (CA), California Pacific are all legally operating State Licensed/Authorized post secondary educational institutions. Until all states completely ban unaccredited colleges from functioning within their boarders, legally operating, State Licensed/Authorized postsecondary educational institutions are able to legitimately confer legal postsecondary degrees.

I am not claiming that State Approved Degrees have as much utility as RA degrees; for that matter, I also feel that DETC degrees have less utility than RA degrees. However, what I value about out US system is that a variety of postsecondary educational alternative can co-exist in the US – legally. Providing a variety of options for students to choose from. K-W will not effectively seek to compete with Cornell , however, it is not designed to. But there is room for both institutions to legally operate.

If you, as a student, are not satisfied with the school, then choose another. If you as an Employer do not value State Approved options then, by all means, only hire accredited graduate employees. State Approved Degrees exist for a variety of reasons, chief amongst them are that their programs tend to shorter, they tend to vocationally oriented, and cost effective; for $5,000 you can effectively put yourself thru a CA Approved graduate program in a nine month period. For these options I feel that such schools do hold value, but, by the same token, due to these options – State Approved Schools hold less perceived utility than Regionally Accredited Schools. This is the Trade off the student has to make, but at least in the United States - the choice exists.

Finally, the State of Hawaii does have standards for the Registry of a non-unaccredited school. The examples of the many forced closures we have seen in the last few months are proof. Also, the state tightened its residency requirements, as well as, mandating a certain number of students required to be enrolled within the state itself. Clearly, there is room for further regulation, but the state is heading in the right direction.

 

I agree. I'm convinced that a student that enrolls in KW or any state licensed institution is not commiting an illegal act and this should be regarded as a valid consumer's choise.

As for the utility of the degree, as you say, it might provide an option for those students that are looking for a program that can accomodate their budget and time limits.

If the option is a SA approved degree or no-degree because time and cost constraints. I'm convinced that the SA degree can be a better option for the work place than no degree at all. At least it shows initiative and some knowledge could be gained from the experience.

However, the prospect student must be aware that there are many choises that provide better opportunities at the same cost as SA institutions. In my opinion is not really the cost that drives students to SA institutions but the possibility of earning degree in very little time.

In conclusion, I recognize that the label "mill" should be left for illegal operations and organizations as KW should be called "substandard" in order to respect those that have legally taken the option of a substandard degree.

 

Re: Re: Re: Re: Are all unaccredited schools degree mills

I'll take your word for it.

But how does that imply that the distinction between accredited and non-accredited schools can be dismissed?

I still say that in general, accredited schools enjoy the presumption of legitimacy. Obviously we form our own opinions about which of them we personally prefer. But all of them possess fundamental legitimacy, albeit defeasible.

But with non-accredited schools, that legitimacy can't simply be assumed. It has to be demonstrated. The school or its champions have the responsibility of showing not only that the school isn't a degree-mill fraud, but that it meets expected academic standards.

I'm happy to accept that some non-accredited schools can do that. I think that I've done as much to argue that point as anyone on Degreeinfo. But the fact that some of them can prove themselves doesn't mean that none of them have to.

 

I agree that Hawaii is moving in the right direction. For example they chased the degree mill known as Kennedy-Western University right out of their state. As further evidence that K-W is a degree mill, it was also chased out of California (at least their mailbox) and Idaho for fear of being closed down as an illegal operation. So this dreadful place is now in it's fourth state for mailbox service, Wyoming.

BTW RJT, what do you have to say about K-W claiming bogus accreditation back in 1990? You were of the opinion that this was the strongest indicator of a degree mill?

 

Please explain how you are using the word 'legitimately' in the last sentence. What does the word imply? If a degree is 'legitimate' in your sense, what should we conclude? How should we react?

But must everyone else defer to that student's choice of school, or can they express their own opinions about the matter?

Frankly I don't give a rat's ass if you attend K-W. As I've said before, I'm currently interested in a non-degree-granting California institution that not only isn't accredited, it isn't even state approved. Nevertheless, it's probably the best school for me at the present moment.

Where I part company with you is when you insist that all the rest of us affirm your choice of K-W and applaud it. You want K-W accepted by Degreeinfo as a valuable DL choice right up there alongside the accredited schools and essentially equivalent to them.

Unfortunately for you, the rest of us have some say in that.

I think that most of us are skeptical about both K-W and Wyoming licensing in general. You need to address those concerns and argue convincingly for K-W's credibility. The burden of proof is on you to demonstrate that K-W is worthy of other people's respect and suitable to be recommended to prospective students. You need to win Degreeinfo's acceptance, you can't just demand it as a matter of right, simply because K-W happens to be legal.

 

Of course you are actually correct on this. K-W is only partially illegal, chased out of three states, and "holed" up in one of the few degree mill states left. It will be interesting to see what the next few years bring for old K-W.

 

You may have missed it but we previously covered CCU extensively. It isn't the degree mill that K-W and others are, but its graduate level courses consist of one text book and unproctored chapter quizes. Now that they are going for DETC accreditation they will be required to tighten up a bit. It should clearly pull them out of the degree mill category but still leaves then in the substandard category.

Virtually all traditional colleges in the US are regional accredited. DETC is traditionally the accreditor of correspondent and career colleges. At least some of their approved schools are clearly questionable. DETC has made significant progess but to equate it with RA is just silly.

Many people have used DETC and State Approved degrees to their advantage. Both have their utility and usefulness. To pretend they are anywhere close to RA is, again, silly.

 

I don't know if you noticed, but he commented that "BAD" institutions turn good with the time.

 

After reading all the posts I have decided to use this system to describe distance and residential colleges. You may not agree and you are of course free to use any words, systems, that you see fit.

1- Degree Mills= no study or testing procedures, Example=Trinity

2-less demanding=authorized/approved, Example= California Coast, Chadwick, SCUPS

3- more demanding= accredited distance degrees, Example=Excelsior College, Thomas Edison College

4- most demanding= upper level residential colleges- Harvard, University of Tennessee, University of Calif., Berkeley and others.

I believe this will accurately describe different types of schools without having to start a war, fun though they may be.
James C.

 

I agree, the "less demanding" label is a polite way of telling these graduates that they did substandard work.

 

Thank you, I had missed that. I appreciate the help keeping up especially when I can get a good laugh out of it!

RJT, so K-W was a degree mill and now they're not, simply because they're afraid of Wyoming closing them down if they follow their old business practice? I do believe that K-W is owned by the same fellow. Do you believe that the owner transformed from dishonest misleader into honest educator?

 

DaveHayden: "but its graduate level courses consist of one text book and unproctored chapter quizes."


Cehi: I thought Cal Coast data states that a textbook will be used for each graduate course rather than graduate level courses. 98% of the undergraduate, graduate, and post graduate courses that I completed for all my degrees at RA institution (Texas - LongHorn, baby) require only one textbook. There are very few occasions where a workbook maybe required along with a textbook. If CalCoast exams are not proctored, even so, this approach seems similar with open book exams which are equally common at RA facilities. Like you said, maybe their quest for DETC accreditation will require some restructure in their practices. I appreciate your usual analytical comments.

 

So, the answer to the original question ...whether all unaccredited schools are degree mills, the concensus answer appears to be No.

...but god save the queen, we have got to make sure we don't flush our values down the toilet or let those substandards sneak in!!!

 

I like schemes like this because they encapsulate a lot of information. They express not only how we define "mills" and what we think of accreditation, but they express our whole idea of academic quality and legitimacy.

Here's mine:

1. Educational frauds. No study or testing necessary. Many of these are illegal and others exploit loopholes and off-shore jurisdictions.

Examples: the "prestigious non-accredited degree" scam or the "novelty" diploma "replacement" services. Some of those "life-experience universities".

2. Clearly substandard schools. These require some work, but that work doesn't really resemble what's expected at accredited schools. Some of these schools are cynical scams and others are well-intentioned. They generally are legal, but exploit loopholes and lax jurisdictions.

Examples: A lot of the Bible/theology schools that operate out of church basements with religious exemptions. K-W may or may not belong here.

3. Lame schools. These schools approximate expected standards, but they don't seem to pull it off very well. They may be for-profit businesses or idealistic but questionable attempts at realizing something. We start seeing accredited schools appearing at this level, and it's where we find the bulk of the CA-approved schools. The problem is that a lot of judgement calls are going to be necessary, and naming them is really a matter of taste.

Examples: One might put Cal Coast or SCUPS here. Saratoga Law. If I'm feeling uncharitable, TESC (they do grant an ungodly amount of credit for easy-to-beat multiple choice exams). CSUDH according to some of its critics. Maharishi University perhaps. Perhaps the University of Philosophical Research (despite the fact I like it). Perhaps the San Diego University of Integrative Studies (despite the fact I like it) or the California Institute for Human Science. Perhaps Trinity College and Seminary. Bob Jones perhaps. Many of the accredited acupuncture schools.

4. Pedestian schools. They meet expected standards, but don't really show anything special. These are faceless schools that are back there in the pack somewhere. Pretty much all of DETC and TRACS end up here, I think. Many RA programs settle here as well. Again, this is going to be a judgement call.

Examples: TESC probably most accurately belongs here. CSUDH probably is most comfortable here. U. of Phoenix. Touro. Union Institute. National U., City U. Capella. Argosy. Alliant. Jones Intl. SF Law School. Bob Jones probably. St. Leo. Bellevue. Webster. Excelsior. COSC. Strayer.

5. Pedestrian schools with occasional signs of brilliance. If you sort through the faceless schools, you often find interesting things. Programs that are unusual and innovative in some way. Research efforts that are leaders in their small niche.

Examples: Nova SE with their oceanography program. CSUDH if you like their unusual orthotics and prosthetics program. Some might put Bob Jones here (I wouldn't). American Military U. might go here because of its unusual offerings. San Francisco State and San Jose State are blue collar schools with some very strong areas. San Diego State has lots of joint doctoral programs with the UCs. SW Texas State is big-time in geography. TESC is a leader in providing services to adult learners, I guess. I might put Hsi Lai here because of their strength in Buddhist studies. Perhaps Expression Center fits here as well.

6. Strong schools with some brilliant aspects. They are consistently good schools that show real leadership in some areas.

Examples: UC Santa Cruz with its world-class astronomy program. UCR. UCI. Santa Clara U. Cal Poly San Luis Obispo. New Mexico Inst. Mining and Tech (in explosives, especially). Worcestor Poly. Embry Riddle. RPI. U. Hawaii, particularly in Asian philosophy and astronomy. Catholic U. Fordham. Yeshiva. U.New Mexico. St. John's.

7. Consistently brilliant schools. These schools try to be leaders in pretty much everything they do.

Examples: Stanford. UC Berkeley. Cal Tech. UCLA. MIT. Columbia. U. of Chicago. National Test Pilot School (yep, this is probably where I'd put it).

 

How dare you place Stanford in the same category as my alma mater, Cal! I always thought you were a responsible, honest and thoughtful person until now, Bill. Stanford is a crappy school that just hands out A's to anyone that can afford their ridiculous tuition. They can't hold a candle to Cal. ... Oops, perhaps my school days bias is showing?

P.S. nice list of categories