Cal Coast to begin three doctoral programs

Thank you for ALL the information!!!

Although I haven't made a lot of posts in this thread, I read it daily. It's about the most informative and interesting read at DegreeInfo.com that I've seen in many years, particularly the insightful academic insights of Rich and Anthony; both are based on industry experience -- without bias.

Nobody is knocking DETC as a valid accreditation. It's simply an educational and insightful experience for many new readers here to suddenly learn that most RA colleges and universities will not accept DETC degrees; and when this fact is pointed out, it seems to endlessly enrage some DETC advocates. If you want to get a DETC doctorate, if they are ever approved, then go for it, but the same limitations will apply, as have been discussed here ad delicious (nope, I didn't say ad nausem).

Those who are unfamiliar with how accreditation works in the United States quickly assume that the use of the term "national" accreditation is superior to all other forms of accreditation -- and I believe that some DETC schools disingenuously use this term to their advantage -- instead of simply acknowledging what they really are e.g. DETC and nothing more.

I don't have a financial horse in this race, but to reiterate, this is one of the most informative threads ever at DegreeInfo.com. I'll continue to silently read this thread with exuberant zest and relish! Thank you for your educated insight and your industry experience in the field of academics. It is greatly appreciated by many new readers who are completely unaware of these long-term issues that could have a significant impact on them several years down the road -- after they've spent the time and money on a degree. When you select a degree, make an informed choice!

 

Whose inference is that? Not mine. I don't doubt for a minute that a quality education can be had at many DETC-accredited schools.

I'm not aware of any negative publicity about Union since the OBR action. Please share whatever it is that you have to support this claim.

Everything I've had to say about these matters is based in fact. I've offered no negative opinions about DETC-accredited schools, including their doctoral programs. But I have offered several fact-based assertions that such degrees are less useful than those issued by RA schools. That's a fact; you can look it up.

There doesn't have to be. You have many other data points that tell you. All the schools that don't accept NA grads (John's survey), for example, or don't hire them as faculty (anecdotal--try to find them--they're hard to ferret out). Or employers who find NA less acceptable (my research). Or DETC's own research about the utility of the degrees their own schools issue. What is different--in a positive way--that would improve the situation for doctorates issued by these schools? What, a master's from such a school would be less acceptable when applying for teaching jobs, but a doctorate from the same school would be more acceptable? Wow.

There are many data that point away from these degrees being a good idea, and none that point toward it. But you want to wait. So wait. But don't be surprised if others offer up observations in the mean time.

 

Simon: For someone who is not knocking DETC as a valid accreditation and is so "silent" regarding your perceptions of the limitations of DETC degrees, your true negative sentiments regarding this accrediting agency and its degrees is coming across extremely loud and clear !;-).

In fact there is absolutely no basis at this time for concluding that DETC doctorates will hinder or limit the realistic professional aspirations or future attainments of graduates of these degree programs. This is due to the obvious fact that there are no graduates of these programs that would enable us to understand whether these degrees have relevance and credibility in diverse and myriad work contexts and to draw on the actual experiences of those who have utilized these degrees for professional purposes. To conclude otherwise at this time clearly reveals biased feelings without any credible substantive proof.

 

Not true. What would indicate that doctorates awarded by DETC-accredited schools would enjoy more acceptability than their bachelor's- and master's-level counterparts?

 

You might be right. But to what extent? No one knows. It is not reasonable to toss aside a previously supported hypothesis without new evidence.

 

Not entirely. We see situations all the time where a school's accreditation status is specifically exclusionary, regardless of the quality of said school. These differences matter in many situations to many people. While there are certainly individual exceptions--for both students and schools--these broad categories tend to hold up well for the conversations that take place here.

Further, I would suggest they hold up a lot better for NA than for RA, which sees a much broader continuum of schools. DETC's schools, with a very few exceptions, look remarkably alike, IMHO.

 

Okay, I've had it with the "bias" B.S. If you can prove "bias," then do it. Show me and everyone else how I've been "biased" in my opinion. Not just "wrong," which is a matter of disagreement, but "biased," where I've been unfairly influenced into forming my point of view and offering it as balanced, or that I have some sort of vested interest in the outcome and, therefore, am speaking in order to protect my interests. What force has biased me? What possible interest do I have in the outcome? Come up with it, or knock it off with your very inflammatory language, please.

 

Makes a lot of sense.

I know about the situation I just think its wrong to do this.
i Also agree with redundancy the DL at this time appears RA and DETC in a way replicate. The only thing that comes to my mind is Qualifications Vs Degrees.

I think DETC is academic but focused more on work place and industry.

But Doctorate in Education would be more focused again on Work place, such as schools and not in my view professorship at University as the end goal.

It is interesting that many NA universities majority of faculty hold RA degrees. IS it only because RA degree holders are numerically high due to majority of universities are RA?
Is it statistics or more then that?

 

Simon: In general it is interesting to note that there are times when an individual is on tenuous, insecure ground regarding their professional credentials they defensively denigrate the credibility of others (ie, schools, accrediting agencies, individuals) in order to elevate their status. It is just an interesting "coincidence and observation that the two most adamant and unrelenting posters against DETC doctoral programs are graduates from a school that has a previous history of questionable scholarly academic standards for awarding doctoral degrees. Just my impression.

BTW, there is nothing inflammatory in my statements but observations and impressions based on another poster's taking absolute positions of authority without any current updated authoritative or substantive data to support their contentions. To me this is inflammatory, insulting and derogatory to the intelligence of posters who may benefit from DETC doctoral programs.

 

Because the very nature of DETC has evolved and is continuing to do so as evidenced by their expectations for higher academic standards for their degree programs and graduates and the initiation of CHEA approved doctoral programs. These factors will increase the visibility and credibility of these degrees as well as their utility. Therefore, the past experiences and perceptions of DETC degrees can no longer be held as examples of the future outlook, acceptability and utility of these credentials.

 

I think that it's important to note that it isn't really DETC accreditation that's holding the current DETC schools back. This whole thread is based on a false premise and to some extent is a pointless argument. The handicap that DETC schools face is their own lack of comparability and competitiveness with the kind of research universities that produce professors and researchers. The NY-Regents are probably an even more obscure accreditor than DETC. But the starters on the NY roster will have no trouble placing their graduates. That's because they compare well with competing RA programs and would do well whatever their accreditation.

We have plenty of data upon which to make projections. Academic hiring has been taking place for generations. It's not difficult to determine the kind of things employers have sought, what kind of programs provided it, and who ultimately was hired. It's precisely those kind of things that prospective graduate students with higher-education vocational goals need to be looking at.

If we exclude academic research positions, then we've just excluded what USNews calls 'national-doctoral' universities. That obviously tells us something. I know that hiring at the California State University (USNews 'masters' universities) operates on the same basic principles and seeks similar things.

I agree that the current DETC doctoral degrees (along with some of the low-end RA degrees that aren't tremendously different) will likely find their major higher-education market among instructors in places like community colleges whose positions didn't actually require a doctorate in the first place. Maybe they lust after the title, perhaps they would like an opportunity to keep learning, or maybe their employer offers then incentive pay for the degree.

A big market for Cal Coast's new Ed.Ds will likely be K-12 school teachers who aspire to become school administrators.

 

QUOTE=BillDayson;323654]I think that it's important to note that it isn't really DETC accreditation that's holding the current DETC schools back. This whole thread is based on a false premise and to some extent is a pointless argument. The handicap that DETC schools face is their own lack of comparability and competitiveness with the kind of research universities that produce professors and researchers. The NY-Regents are probably an even more obscure accreditor than DETC. But the starters on the NY roster will have no trouble placing their graduates. That's because they compare well with competing RA programs and would do well whatever their accreditation.

Simon: It has already been agreed that there is no argument regarding the inherent limitations of these doctoral programs as they exist in their current design for certain teaching and research positions within the context of academia. However, what is important to note is that this does not negate the value and utility of these degrees for certain individuals within academia as well as in myriad other industries and work contexts. In addition, there is little doubt that as more individuals graduate from these DETC doctoral programs these programs will gain in visibility with concommitant gains in crediblity.


Dayson: We have plenty of data upon which to make projections. Academic hiring has been taking place for generations. It's not difficult to determine the kind of things employers have sought, what kind of programs provided it, and who ultimately was hired. It's precisely those kind of things that prospective graduate students with higher-education vocational goals need to be looking at.

If we exclude academic research positions, then we've just excluded what USNews calls 'national-doctoral' universities. That obviously tells us something. I know that hiring at the California State University (USNews 'masters' universities) operates on the same basic principles and seeks similar things.

Simon: However, as I indicated in my previous post, this does not necessarily negate their potential utilization for use by some of those currently in teaching positions within certain academic situations (ie, community colleges, certain RA colleges and universities, trade schools, etc) as well as administrators within academia.


Dayson: I agree that the current DETC doctoral degrees (along with some of the low-end RA degrees that aren't tremendously different) will likely find their major higher-education market among instructors in places like community colleges whose positions didn't actually require a doctorate in the first place. Maybe they lust after the title, perhaps they would like an opportunity to keep learning, or maybe their employer offers then incentive pay for the degree.

A big market for Cal Coast's new Ed.Ds will likely be K-12 school teachers who aspire to become school administrators.[/QUOTE]

Simon: And your above response is the very reason we cannot throw out the proverbial baby with the bathwater because it is possible that significant numbers of individuals within academia meet the criteria you note above and a doctoral degree from a DETC school may just meet their needs.

 

I emphatically agree with that.

Maybe. I'm inclined to think that there are lots of different gaps and that Degreeinfo is simplistic when it sweeps all of them under the DETC/RA rug. There are check-the-box job-spec requirements at different kinds of employers, government and private. There are licensing requirements in different professions in different states. There are all kinds of competitive hiring situations. What works fine in one situation might be worthless in another. It's difficult to generalize over all of it without considering the particular circumstances.

My argument has been that these accreditation differences are already kind of meaningless at the doctoral level. (Professional licensing apart, where particular accreditations can be crucial.)

Part of our problem is that this is a DL board, so we are always comparing RA with DETC. DETC doesn't compare very well up on the doctoral level, so DETC gets dismissed, and NA gets dismissed along with it. The implication is that as far as academic credibility and hiring opportunities go, it has to be RA or nothing.

That's why I keep trotting out the NY-Regents. They aren't RA either, but their leading schools do just fine. Why? Because they are strong, research productive graduate programs. When a school is competitive on its own merits, the issue of who accredits it just kind of shrinks away to insignificance.

If a school is perceived as being academically competitive, then its being DETC wouldn't hurt it any more than being NY-Regents does. It will be competitive. But if it isn't competitive, then it's unlikely that any institutional accreditation will make that weakness go away, even if the accreditation is RA. It still won't be competitive.

At least at the doctoral level, where educational qualifications are seldom a check-the-box situation where HR geeks use accreditation as a screening criterion, programs will sink or swim on their own perceived merits.

DETC has demanded that it's schools be let into the game. Now those schools will have to start playing.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rich Douglas
"And it's funny you should cite precedent, for it is that very example that I rely upon when I say that a doctorate from a DETC-accredited school is very much less than average in terms of utility and acceptance. Thank you.

Rich,

What's not true regarding what I’ve [explicitly] written in counter to your earlier statement of precedent, e.g., “… that a doctorate from a DETC-accredited school is very much less than average in terms of utility and acceptance.”? I didn’t mention, nor did I intend to, address comparability of utilities regarding the DETC bachelorette or master degrees with their RA counterparts; that’s already been addressed a myriad of times by many within this discussion board. Strictly pertaining to the DETC doctorate you’ve offered no relevant data or evidence that counters or makes untrue my remarks as regards the current immeasurableness of value /acceptability of the DETC doctorate which to date has not been awarded and certainly not yet tested in the marketplace for utility by any DETC terminal degree holders or industry.

Your assumptive precedent may very well be one day proven /unproven to fruition; however, without quantifiable data and updated research (both presently not accessible) your existing conjecture is no more exact or compelling than mine and/or others would be given the unknowns in re to the new DETC doctorate credential.

 

The usefulness of NA doctorates will be entirely on their acceptance by the employers of the most likely target audience: those professions that do not require the doctorate, but would likely reward those who receive one with an increase in salary or position. The same areas that began to accept online doctorates some years ago will be the proving grounds. These include:

K-12 teachers
K-12 administrators & district staff
Community college faculty & adjuncts
Community college administrators
Corporate training and staff development professionals
Book authors
Professionals serving as expert witnesses

For the most part, these would be professionals already established in their positions who wish to "upgrade" themselves with a doctorate. If K-12 districts, community colleges, etc., use "accredited," rather than "regionally accredited" in their HR descriptions, then the NA doctorates may become a viable option.

Online doctorates are becoming more commonplace at universities, particularly among administrators and faculty in areas where a doctorate may not be required and among adjuncts. Acceptance is still very low for full-time tenure track positions at brick & mortar campuses and I would expect that acceptance for NA doctorates for these positions would be nil. Fortunately institutions that offer online RA doctorates market them to mid-career professionals, not young graduates aspiring to university assistant professor positions. CCU has been in the business long enough that it likely knows who is (and who isn't) a candidate for its doctoral programs.

 

I agree entirely with Dr. Pina.

 

You're right, no one knows. Not even you. Nothing is being tossed aside. To adapt an old saying, a grain of salt is being added.

 

You left out consultants /consulting firms …