BEST UNACCREDITED PhD PROGRAM

I took an IQ test once, and according to the score I'm literally mentally retarded. How I managed to become a programmer I'll never know.

 

Again, I am not advocating for the quality of UA degrees. I agree that they are, in most situations, not worth the time and money. However, people have all kinds of reasons to pursue their degrees. In all situations that I can think of, a properly accredited degree has far more utility, but there may be some cases in which a UA degree meets the needs of the student.

 

There are a number of accredited schools that get slammed on this board. True, degrees earned from those schools will still have more utility that an exceptional UA school, but the quality of education is a different matter.

 

I took an IQ test once, and according to the score, I was a genius. That was then. How I managed to get from there to stupid, I'll never know. Probably ruined by education. :jester:

Johann

 

Was I being dishonest, Steve? Well, I wasn't consciously trying to be, anyway -- I guess my dishonesty comes naturally, effortlessly, by reflex! What you say is absolutely true -- but I usually forget about it, because I have never missed the money. You don't miss what you never had.

I'd rather have it this way -- because if one of us Canucks suddenly needed $50 -100,000 for medical treatment - most of us would be absolutely screwed. Even if the tax rate was half what it is - it'd be the same. This way, there's one less thing to worry about. It's "free," in the sense I never see the bill - and yes, I guess the tax man is hiding it.

That's OK with me. Wouldn't have it any other way. It's not perfect, but it works. Now what happens in your system when some poor person, maybe disadvantaged, long-term unemployed etc. needs an operation or expensive treatment? :sad:

Hey, what happens when some middle-income person has the same need and has the insurer or HMO-from-hell? From what I hear, I wouldn't want to get sick in the US! Nope - not even a cold! I don't want to get sick anywhere -- but I'll take my chances, here!

Johann

 

I guess I did pay extra taxes for health care, etc., before I turned 65. Now, my income is less and the statutory exemptions are very useful.

Yet still, my health care is covered. Yes, there are some very good things about getting old, here. :smile: I plan to be collecting my pension till I'm 140. That's when I'll be even with the Government. And if I can't take money with me, I'll consider not "going!" :smile:

Johann

 

There are some specific cases where it matters to have a degree for "vetting" purposes but accreditation as such is not a big concern. I know of licensed Christian counselor a for whom a degree is needful & the coursework totally appropriate for non-psychiatric counseling spiritually practical in nature for whom a less expensive UA degree is a wise route; when working strictly in a religious context the accreditation tends to matter less. But, these are exceptions and not the rule.

 

I am bias, I wont trade trade Canadian healthcare for American healthcare care. Apparently, healthcare in Western Europe is even better than Canada, because it is a mixed of universal and private care for the wealthy. The USA government spent a lot more than any country per capita on healthcare.

Johann and I can't agree on anything but dont mess with our healthcare. Many Canadian who are wealthy travel to India to receive first class care without waiting. The joke is - in Canada you are dead waiting - in the US you are dead because you are poor.

 

Legitimate unaccredited school?

Being a lawyer, I bring a lawyer's mind to the issue. I think in terms of burden of proof. If a student earns a degree from an accredited school, the burden is on the school to prove the degree represents academic accomplishment commensurate with the degree title.

If the degree comes from an unaccredited school, that awful burden rests on the student.

That factor, in my mind, outweighs all other considerations.

 

10 Characters

 

Very well stated!!!

 

If we are speaking in absolutes, yes, I agree. However, as we have stated, there are always exceptions and special circumstances.

 

I think there's one, somewhere...Ok, dare taken. :smile: Here's one of excellent repute :

Sanford-Burnham Graduate School of Biomedical Sciences

One thing I should say - the school has always been unaccredited, as we generally use the word. AFAIK its programs (including Ph. D.) are all State-approved. Although it has still not yet received accreditation, the Sanford-Burnham Institute has achieved Candidate status with WASC - which, as the school says - and is required to say - is not, in itself, accreditation. (But I'm betting it will be accredited, in due course.)

Despite my taking your dare, Kizmet -- I do not regard what you said as "high schoolish" in the least. Good unaccredited programs are rare. Superior ones are more than rare. We're fortunate to know of at least two. :smile:

Johann

 

A school that achieves official "Candidate" status with a regional accreditation agency (like WASC) is considered "pre-accredited" by the US Dept. of Education. A "pre-accredited" school gets essentially all the benefits of regional accreditation:

- it is listed in the USDoE "Database of Accredited Postsecondary Institutions and Programs".
- its students qualify for Federal financial aid.
- its degrees and credits are accepted by other RA schools.

So yes, in theory, Sanford-Burnham is only "pre-accredited" at this time. But in practice, "pre-accredited" status is functionally equivalent to regional accreditation.

 

Sorry, but that one doesn't count as an "unaccredited PhD program" any more. WISR has switched the program over from the PhD to the EdD, apparently because professional doctorate programs (unlike PhD programs) are potentially eligible for national accreditation:

So the WISR program is no longer a PhD, and in the future it may not be unaccredited either.

 

And of those two:

- one has nearly completed the regional accreditation process, and
- the other has changed its academic policies in order to "explore the possibility of seeking national accreditation".

So both of these "more than rare, superior unaccredited schools" have shown an apparent interest in losing their "unaccredited" status.
What does that tell us ?

 

(1) That Johann was "reaching" ...again. :smile:
(2) Obviously - the undeniable value of accreditation
(3) That Kizmet and I will have to keep looking... :smile:

Johann

 

I do not know the answer; are not all universities unaccredited before they are accredited except for public universities? My take is accreditation is on objective standard of quality. Being unaccredited, quality becomes relative - not that accreditation is absolute quality but it is objective. Having students justified the quality of unaccredited institutions is too relative. It bring into play cognitive dissonance, where students will imagine high quality to ease the internal conflict of persuing unaccredited studies.

 

Indeed, the student may not be objective. He / she may often have been previously indoctrinated by the school's enrolment people to believe the institution is far better than it actually is. Disillusionment is a bitter pill to swallow. No wonder some resist it.

Sadly, this scenario can sometimes apply to accredited schools. We've seen the complaints. :sad:

Best case solution: read up widely before you enrol. That's why forums like DI exist. There is usually somebody - or several people - here who can provide good info - whatever the accreditation status of the school.

Johann