Cal Coast to begin three doctoral programs

Ok, so what about NY-Regents accreditation? Individuals with PhDs from Rockefeller University can and do teach at prominent public and private universities. A few examples:

http://depts.washington.edu/epidem/fac/facBio.shtml?Drewnowski_Adam

http://cals.ncsu.edu/genetics/index.php/people/linda-hanley-bowdoin

http://neurosurgery.ucsf.edu/index.php/about_us_faculty_alvarez_buylla.html

http://www.bu.edu/biology/people/faculty/gardner/

So what's up with that little anomaly?

My own opinion is that people aren't being hired because of the accreditation of their graduate school. They are hired because of its reputation in their subject and because of their own research pedigrees and recommendations, which are very closely related things. The good schools associate students with cutting-edge work and with prominent professors who can put in a good word for them.

If a university can successfully do that, then its being DETC would be pretty much moot, just as it is for the more prominent NY-Regents schools. If it can't, then being RA isn't going to bail it out.

 

Knowledge is Power

1. I presume it was a Masters level thesis and not a doctoral level dissertation.

2. I also presume that the faculty member of CSUDH held a regionally accredited degree, which made him eligible to work with graduate students.

3. If you're suggesting that the administrators at CSUDH would recognize a DETC doctorate as a suitable credential for teaching CSUDH graduate students, then you are sadly mistaken.

Rockafeller University is definitely an anomaly. If my memory serves me correctly, Rockafeller isn't RA and isn't DETC but, conversely, they have demonstrated some outstanding research methodologies with fabulious results, which is recognized by RA institutions. DETC doesn't have research facilities and doesn't fall into the same league as the anomalous Rockafeller University. A case for DETC can't be built upon the outstanding in-resident research facilities at Rockafeller University.

I personally have nothing against DETC accreditation, as long as prospective customers/students understand the limited utilities of DETC, along with associated academic biases. When some DETC advocates suggest that DETC doctorates will have the same utility as RA, then it gives me heartburn i.e. it would be a tragedy for a customer/student to select a DETC doctorate and then spend all that time and money on it, only to learn afterward that it's not recognized by regionally accredited state universities.

There are many disingenuous people who espouse that DETC doctorates have the same utility as regionally accredited doctorates -- and they are doing a great disservice to unsuspecting customers/students. For that reason, discussion boards, such as this, exist to inform potential unsuspecting customers/students. Conversely, the exposure of this knowledge enrages some DETC advocates because it severely cuts into their profit margins [once unsuspecting customers/students become aware of these accreditation issues]. Knowledge is power.

 

What I hear you saying is that regionally-accredited schools look down on DETC-accredited schools. Is that correct? Do you feel that doctorates conferred by the two systems are equivalent and suitable for use in either system?

The doctorate is for research and teaching in higher education, which is largely run by regionally-accredited schools. Unfortunately, the DETC-doctorate solves a problem that doesn't really exist: the genuine need for a doctorate outside higher education.

That said, I'm happy to see that CCU has moved slowly to add back doctorates. Also, the Ed.D. Ed. Psychology program (I haven't seen a description of it) could be a very cost-effective way for already established educators and counselors to do something meaningful to increase their skills.

 

I have a question: Why do some of you see teaching as the "Holy Grail" of professions? That belief probably shapes some of your bias. You do realize that there are other vocations out there, right? Nothing against teaching but I couldn't afford that pay cut. I imagine that most people do not aspire to teach so I don't understand why you guys argue against DETC accreditation from that angle so often. Who cares about what some snobby professor might think? I know I don't. I know my Fortune 100 employer doesn't either and they think the world of education and they don't distinguish between NA or RA.

Incidentally, what do you think of this NYT article? http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/18/arts/18liberal.html?partner=rss&emc=rss

 

Crickets...

 

ShotoJuku, that was actually a pretty funny statement that you made.

 

If somebody says that all swans are white, then even a single black swan disproves the proposition. In this case, we've disproven the proposition that American universities only hire domestically trained individuals with doctorates from RA schools.

The existence of 'anomalies' suggests that employers are willing to consider non-RA doctoral educations, if they deem them equivalent to or better than competing RA programs.

If you are saying that no DETC-accredited doctoral programs can currently compare with Rockefeller's, then I totally agree with you and that was my point in earlier posts.

My assertion is that academic hiring won't have a great deal of trouble with graduates of non-RA programs, if those programs are competitive. Rockefeller provides some verification for that prediction.

My broader conclusion is that it isn't the accreditor that's the significant variable, it's the perceived academic strength of the doctoral program.

I emphatically agree that DETC accreditation won't turn a sow's ear into a silk purse. It won't transform an obscure and marginal doctoral program into an academic juggernaut. It won't automatically make DETC doctors competitive on the academic job market.

But if a non-RA school that's accredited by DETC, ACICS or the NY-Regents can make a name for itself though hard work and scholarly productivity, then I don't think that it will encounter very much resistance from academic employers. That's the significance of the Rockefeller example. It's why graduates of the newer NY-Regents accredited PhD programs offered by the American Museum of Natural History, Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory and Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Institute will doubtless be competitive as well.

This is why I continue preaching (a lone voice in the wilderness) that if DETC really wants to play the doctoral game, then it has to start playing the game. If it wants graduates of its schools to be competitive with graduates of the University of California, then those schools have to behave like UC. DETC needs to push any of its schools with doctoral ambitions into starting research units, hosting research projects, competing for public and private funding grants, publishing and actively participating in the intellectual life of their subjects. It has to get academic peers talking about the interesting work that's coming out of DETC schools. That's how academics become aware of programs and it's what gets doctoral graduates hired.

 

As I understand it (imperfectly, I'm sure) most states require some level of certification/licensure in Educational Psych in order to be employed. This is typically done on the Masters level. I'm guessing that virtually 100% of the people entering this program will be people currently employed as school psychologists or social workers and that they already have the necessary certs/licenses for their position. They will be enrolling in this sort of EdD program in order to get a raise or to put themselves in line for a promotion. I'm guessing that it will not matter (in most cases) that this is a DETC accredited degree.

 

I'm glad for you and your current situation. I think everyone acknowledges that degrees from DETC-accredited schools are useful to some people at some times. It's the magnitude of it--and how it compares with regional accreditation--that matters. DETC accreditation brings about distinct limitations, and pretending that it doesn't is irresponsible to other readers.

Very seldom is started a thread designed specifically to put down DETC. These discussions get started invariably when someone touts a DETC-accredited school without also acknowledging the obvious and extremely important point that degrees from those schools perform in an inferior manner. The reasons why are interesting to explore, but they don't change that very simple fact.

 

Agreed. And you're not alone. There might be a couple of schools in DETC's universe that might, in niche areas, be able to do just that. But, as we've seen, the majority of doctoral programs being launched by DETC-accredited schools are cookie-cutter programs in business and education areas. Also, I will once again state:

a) There are unique aspects of delivering instruction via DL, and

b) DETC could decide to become a leader in setting standards, researching methodologies, helping with androgogical issues, and, yes, even accrediting programs. Instead, it chooses to be a second-rate RA-wanna-be.

It was noted by Ian (above) that doctoral programs at DETC-accredited schools solve a problem that does not exist. I have been saying for a long time--including earlier in this thread--that this is true for DETC as a whole. They bring nothing unique to the table, except the willingness to accredit schools that are not RA.

 

I asked about accreditation of the programs and here is the reply:

Yes, the DETC has approved our programs and asked us to begin enrolling a limited number of students before they can grant us accreditation. They would like to have student data to evaluate. In about 6 months to a year, we will undergo a site visit with the DETC team members where they will evaluate how the program is doing- this will involve contacting students to get their feedback.

 

Hi Kizmet,

Educational Psychologists generally work as non-licensed researchers or academicians. As far as I know, only California and Massachussets license "Educational Psychologists". That's not to say that Educational Psychologists do not work in primary and secondary school settings - they often do. However, they perform non-clinical interventions, such as testing, conducting research, etc.

You are correct though - it probably won't matter in many cases that this degree is accredited by DETC.

BTW, for those interested - Ball State University has a nice looking online MA in Ed. Psych, with specializations in Gifted and Talented Education, Human Development and Statistical and Research methods.

Finally (winding up the propeller hat), here is some background reading on the history of educational psychology.

 

These NA degrees will not be recognized in UK.

NARIC will not evaluate US NA degrees.

SInce many other countries use NARIC I think its a problem.

So if you have employer or university who require NARIC evaluation you are scr--d.

 

I don't think too many people on here who might be interested in the DETC doctorate will be living in the UK.

 

For profits like UOP use their regional accreditation as a marketing tool to distinguish themselves from DETC schools. The fact is that most employers and schools don’t explicitly mention what type of accreditation is acceptable to them, so there is no reason to think they care about anything more than the quality of the institution.

I don’t know how your surveys and doctoral dissertation data were constructed, so I cannot directly comment on them. I suspect that if you mention the term “regional accreditation” to employers in a survey, they will answer that they require it because they may think its better, without not even knowing what it means.

DETC surveys found that 70% of students who attempted to transfer credits and degrees were successful. That's a respectably high percentage.

 

That's the thing though, Rich, it's not just my present situation. I remember these discussions when I was in the military and to them, it didn't matter. I worked for a different Fortune 500 company when I got out, it didn't matter to them. I worked for a private company and again it didn't matter. The only people that I've been exposed to that seem to have problems with it are administrators that work in RA schools. Maybe I'm insulated by the field that I work in but I just don't see it. I'm giving you my real-world experience; not theory or opinion.

 

OK, that's my frame of reference, Massachusetts. I know that these things vary from state to state but I'm just far enough removed from this stuff that I don't know how the laws shift as you move across the country. Thanks for the info.

 

Just last month you wrote:

What's the deal?

 

Perhaps, but it is yet another indicator of the distinction--one way, sadly--between RA and DETC.

 

Not true. Not only did HR professionals report a significantly lower level of acceptability of degrees from DETC-accredited schools, there is a great deal of anecdotal evidence available that some employers do not accept DETC-accredited degrees. There is no similar condition as it relates to RA.

Okay, so you don't know what you're talking about, but you talk anyway? Fine. Guess what. Employers made a distinction between a regional accreditor (not "regional accreditation" in general) and several national accreditors. When provided descriptions of them later, their distinctions were--ta da--significantly greater. Significantly different before, even more so after.

Compared to what? I think it is a horrible number, and have said so for many years. My goodness, a 30% failure rate is somehow acceptable? In what environment, outside of baseball? And remember, each "success" in that 70% could be made up of one or more prior failures. For example, a respondent could have applied to, say, 5 schools, with one accepting them. That would be a success, and the 4 failures would be ignored/lost.

Can you imagine what would happen to an RA school with graduates reporting those numbers? Respectable? Please. In fact, this series of surveys--done by DETC themselves--indicts them terribly.