Cal Coast

Advanced Search

| Help


Print edition

E-letters
Calendar

Submit your event

PostNewsweek Awards
WT Forum

Upcoming

Recent

Resource Centers
Top 100 Federal
Prime Contractors

Small Business / 8(a)

Fast 50

State & Local
Who's Who
Tech Almanac
Technology reports
from our sponsors



Printer-Friendly Version E-Mail This Article


09/01/03; Vol. 18 No. 11

Letters to the editor: Readers defend CCU

Washington Technology's coverage in the July 7 issue of the diploma mill controversy has sparked several letters defending California Coast University, which was identified as an unaccredited school.

"Your characterization ... is inaccurate and misleading," wrote Rodney Kirkland, a senior program manager in Hamilton, Va. "The school has been operating for the past 30 years with full institutional approval from the state of California, falling under the California Education Code as a degree-granting institution."

He also wrote: "California Coast is currently a candidate for accreditation by the Distance Education and Training Council, which is recognized by the U.S. Education Department. Please improve your reporting by accurately describing this school in the future and perhaps writing a correction."

Another reader, David Love, vice president of operations for telecom solutions at LogicaCMG Wireless Networks Inc., Dallas, also criticized the reports. Love said his letter reflects his opinion and not that of his employer.

Love received his doctorate in engineering management from California Coast after receiving degrees from Vanderbilt University, Pennsylvania State University and the University of Texas.

"A master's in engineering plus seven years of full-time, paid, occupational experience in engineering were pre-requisites for admission," Love said. "CCU's engineering management dean, Peter Shanta, holds bachelor's and master's degrees from the University of Pittsburgh and a doctorate from Case Institute."

Love's work at the school included eight courses, a research course and a formal dissertation. The dissertation included a preliminary proposal, formal proposal, dissertation, comprehensive written exam and a public defense at the school's campus in Santa Ana, Calif., he said.

Love's dissertation was the "Influence of German Type VII, XXI and XXIII Submarine Design and Engineering on the Post-World War II U.S. Navy Submarine Program."

"I am proud of the finished dissertation and believe that CCU's program is outstanding for those who are self-motivated and have the discipline to complete the work," he said.



The response of the Washington Technology editors:

California Coast University is not accredited by any organization recognized by the U.S. Education Department.

The school appears on the Oregon Student Assistance Commission Office of Degree Authorization's list of institutions that are not allowed to operate in the state and whose degrees are not legal for use when applying for state jobs. Oregon does recognize the degrees of some unaccredited schools, but CCU is not among them.

The Oregon office's Web site notes that "not all unaccredited colleges are necessarily degree mills in the traditional sense of the term. Some unaccredited colleges provide legitimate academic work."

Indiana, New Jersey and North Dakota are other states that do not recognize degrees from unaccredited institutions.

The Bureau for Private Post Secondary and Vocational Education, within California's Consumer Affairs Department, has licensed CCU to do business in California.

In June, CCU applied to the Distance Education and Training Council for accreditation. The U.S. Education Department does recognize the council as a legitimate accrediting organization.

Michael Lambert, the council's executive director, said California Coast's application would be evaluated at the organization's June 2004 meeting.

As a condition of its application, CCU agreed to close its doctorate programs, because the council's "scope of authority is limited to the first level of professional degree and below," Lambert said.

To read the complete letters to the editor go to www.washingtontechnology.com and type 115 in the Quickfind box.

 

Kirkland (the same one who posts here?) is very much incorrect regarding CCU's status with DETC. He states that CCU is a candidate for DETC accreditation. This is false. DETC does not have a candidacy designation; a school is or is not accredited. Attibuting candidacy implies an evaluation that has not yet taken place. CCU is no closer to accreditation that when it applied.

I do like the equating of California Approval with licensure. It certainly has devolved to that. California Approval used to be reserved for programs that were truly a cut above. (CCU, when California approved individual programs, was the first DL unaccredited school to have all of its degree programs approved.) But no more. Certainly there are California-Approved programs that are outstanding. But there are many that are otherwise, thus diminishing the imprimatur of that state's approval. Too bad.

 

In Indiana this does not apply to unaccredited "religious seminary, institute, college, or university whose certificates, diplomas, or degrees clearly identify the religious character of the educational program..."

 

Rich

I speak English, sort of. A candidate for president is no closer to being president than the day he first became a candidate. That sir, is why they call him a frigging candidate.

 

"Sort of" isn't good enough in this case. Candidacy, as it relates to accreditation, has a meaning far more significant and specific than just the dictionary definition in common use. It says that the accreditation agency has evaluated the school in question, determined that it will likely meet its standards, and designates it (as a candidate for accreditation) as such. DETC does no such thing. CCU is, as you've observed, no closer than the day it applied.

I realize you have a horse in this race. I do not. I hope yours finishes in the money.

 

DETC does not look kindly on applicants who use the term "candidacy."

At least three unsuccessful recent applicants may have done so (schools C, SJ, and S)

 

I don't think it was CCU that used the term, but rather Kirkland. A student/alumni does not officially represent the school. He is just writing a news organization. I am with Ruhl it is not like this was an official announcement from the school, and candidacy to most means seeking.

 

I agree, if Kirkland used the term I think he used it loosely. but as Rich points out DETC doesn't have candidacy status.

 

Whether DETC uses that term or not, don't they indeed have a candidacy? If I run a school out of my basement + PO Box and call DETC one day and ask to be accredited they will tell me to take a hike. But If I run a CA-Approved for two+ yrs with an office suite, curriculmn, staff and I call them up and ask to be accredited and they accept my application and **my money** and tell me they will be out at my place next June, that sounds like a reasonable definition of being a candidate, whether DETC **likes** to use that term or not.

 

No.

Candidacy for accreditation is normally (but not always) accepted by other institutions as accreditation. The vast majority of candidates advance to full accreditation. It has significant meaning. What you've described is more akin to "applicant" or "correspondent" status, also used by the RA's.

DETC has accepted applications and inquiries from some pretty suspicious schools, including Columbus and Orion. That didn't make them candidates for accreditation, however, in any sense of the word.

This isn't just semantics. "Candidacy" has a very specific meaning in the world of accreditation. Anyone who comments publicly on a school that has applied for DETC accreditation and refers to that school as a candidate for DETC accreditation has made a statement that is both incorrect and irresponsible. As John notes, the schools themselves would be best served by not making that mistake.

 

But makes perfect sense in normal English usage. Maybe some peoples' world is bigger than yourn.

 

Well you said previously DETC does not have a "candidacy" status so what you are descibing above here is the RA accreditation process statuses and has no bearing or meaning with regards to the DETC accreditation process. You are comparing apples to oranges. (RA vs. DETC)

Being DETC has no official "candidacy" status, if I was a business owner who sent DETC a big check and application and they told me they were coming out perhaps a fairer description might be "DETC Prospect Onsite Visit June 2003" instead of "Candidate" but I'm not so sure DETC can control the subtle language the way they feel like it, it sure sounds like a "Candidacy" to me. As far as them taking applications from Orion and other less than wonderful schools, that's DETC's problem not mine and their own business for that matter and would have nothing to do with nothing with regards to my own school's application and process.

 

No again. RA accreditation is the common standard for accreditation within the USA. It is therefore much better understood than the very uncommon DETC. Using the word candidate for an applicant to DETC is being deceitful, inaccurate, or incompetent (depending on the circumstances).

 

DETC very specifically says to applicants, "You cannot call yourself a Candidate for Accreditation." What more do we need to know?

 

We're not talking about RA. We're talking about DETC and their processes which differ than RA processes and in meaning. A DETC school wouldn't say "Candidate For Accreditation" which then you might be correct and that would imply RA. But a DETC candidate/applicant/correspondent whatever would say "Candidate for DETC...". Therefore Rich's implied previous's meanings and definitions wouldn't apply because such conditions he brought up wouldn't be valid in the first place.

 

DETC: "Welcome, Mr. Gigantico. We're happy to accept your application for the accreditation of Gigantico University. We have only one rule. During the accreditation process, you are absolutely forbidden to speak the word "pfefferneuse." We realize that it is a perfectly ordinary word, and people often speak it, in bakeries, markets, and at the dinner table. However, for reasons of our own, no matter how you feel about it, if you wish us to consider your application, you must not say the word 'pfefferneuse." Do you understand?"

Gigantico: Opens window and yells, "PFEFFERNEUSE!"

 

And that's fine for the school, but Kirkland, I think a CCU alumni, a lone person, who knows CCU is undergoing the DETC accreditation process and changing their programs including dropping their Doctoral programs for him to call it Candidacy isn't far off. Afterall, what else is there in the english language to call that?

Or maybe he should've wrote it like this...

"They are undergoing the process Normally known as Candidacy for accreditation..."

 

Applicant?

 

Wrong, wrong, wrong.

You've now heard it from about 4 people, including several extremely experienced, recognized experts in the field, telling you that you've not got it correct, and you STILL are arguing the point.


DETC forbids schools from saying they're in candidacy -- and they strongly frown on a school even mentioning that it is applying for accreditation with DETC.

Why?

Because DETC does not want schools to misrepresent their *APPLICATION* for accreditation as any indication that the school will actually be granted accreditation.

Think about it... Columbus, an absolutely terrible school, applies for DETC accreditation, then proudly announces "We're in candidacy for DETC accreditation." Many prospective students, unaware of the intricacies of the situation, get suckered into enrolling in said school, even though the chance of achieving DETC accreditation is near nil (it's not nil because DETC has made some very stupid accreditation decisions in the past.)

Said awful school does not get accreditation... but meantime, it's had a huge bump in students because of its deceptive marketing.

THAT is why it is absolutely wrong to indicate, in any way, shape, or form, that Cal Coast has done anything other than make an application to be considered for accreditation.

No one (except, perhaps, DETC... who keeps mum about such things) has any idea if they'll actually obtain accreditation.

It is simply deceptive to use the term candidacy or do anything that implies that DETC has reviewed or considered the school... they haven't yet... and until they announce that they have, there is and should be nothing anyone should be saying, other than, perhaps, "We've sent in an application and are waiting to hear."

Any other phrase most likely casts the situation in a more favorable light than it actually is.

Got it?