I was advised today by a CCU admissions counselor that the State of California no longer allows CCU psychology doctoral graduates to sit for CA psychologist licesure. Maybe CA state approval is a demanding (accreditation like) process. Wes
From all reports, not all that demanding. But this says nothing about CA state approval, but rather the approval process of those in charge of the Psych Boards. One less reason to go with this unaccredited school. If you're licensure-track, time to look at one of the admittedly more expensive, but safer options. Any idea when this came about? Tom Nixon
Any idea when this came about? Tom Nixon[/B][/QUOTE] I think this happened back in January of 2001. You're probably right that the psychology board likely had more to do with this than the State approval board.
A visit to the California Psychology Board's web site yielded some insight. A change in the law now requires an "accredited" doctoral degree in one of three subjects. The Board may no longer evaluate equivalence of degrees, or accept foreign degrees. But a psychology license isn't the only option for one wishing to practice psychotherapy. A visit to the CA Behavioral Science Board indicates that they accept "approved" as well as "accredited" degrees for the MFT (formerly MFCC) license. However, CCU was not on the list of "authorized" schools offering qualifying programs for an MFT license. Christopher
This poses several questions: 1. What about those who are already licensed based upon a state approved of foreign (GAAP) degree? Will they be grandfathered into the new criteria, and be allowed to continue to practice? Or, will they be forced to cease all professional activities? 2. Is RA accreditation the only acceptable criteria for a degree? If so, what does this say for foreign degree (GAAP) holders who would like to practice in CA? Would a Ph.D. in psychology earned at Oxford be rejected? Russell
Russell-- Your questions are sound. I would encourage you to check the web site yourself and see if my interpretation is correct. Individuals already licensed are unaffected. Your hypothetical about an Oxford grad is interesting. As I read it, the Oxford grad would not be eligible. Christopher
UPDATE NO new doctoral degree programs developed and CA Approved after January 1, 2001 will be eligible for licensure. This legislation does not affect any existing programs. All doctoral programs (CA Approved) prior to January 1, 2001 remain eligible programs. Regards, Wes
The Board of Behavioral Sciences does accept "approved" degrees for licensure for marriage and family therapist (formerly known as MFCC). However it only accepts approved degrees in programs that have further been authorized by the Board. For example, the CA-approved Newport University's MFT program qualified years back (pre-1996 - Newport is no longer running the program). I attempted to get the California MFCC licence using the Columbia Pacific program when it had California approval. But Columbia Pacific had not applied to the Board to have its programs approved for licensure - so I was unsuccessful. On the other hand, one graduate of CPU successfully challenged the Board of Psychology and is now a practicing psychologist whom I know. Earon
Russell: Most States license or authorize but not Approve. Approval is a process comparable to that of Accreditation. Even the USDOE recognizes State Approval -- if the State in question (in this case CA) applies for recognition. This level of recognition is considered on par with RA. Since CA employs the Approval process I'm not sure why CA BPPVE doesn't apply for USDOE recognition. Refer to the attached link for additional information on USDOE State Approval Recognition. http://www.ed.gov/offices/OPE/accreditation/stateapprovalagencies.html Regards, Wes
Except that it isn't. There is no language I could find that equated this listing with accreditation. It just talks about those state agencies as being reliable, not comparable to accrediting agencies. The only such agency is New York's Board of Regents. You'll find them, but not any other state's board, listed with the national accrediting agencies at: http://www.ed.gov/offices/OPE/accreditation/natlinstandspec.html Interestingly, there seems to be something afoot regarding the Regents' recognition. This statement was added to their listing: * The agency was reviewed for continued recognition in December 2000, after which the Secretary decided to defer action on the agency's request for continued recognition until after the Spring 2002 meeting of the National Advisory Committee. When language in the California statutes equated state approval with accreditation, it was widely ignored. You still can't get into UCLA with a bachelor's from CCU. And acording to more than 330 admissions officials responding to a recent survey, that CCU bachelor's wouldn't cut it in almost every other accredited school. The notion of state approval being comparable to accreditation is interesting, but it is almost exclusively the domain of unaccredited schools and their students. Rich Douglas
RA is a club and nothing more. The six regional associations are not the only capable education evaluators in the country. As of now all I speak is opinion but time permitting I intend to show that the RA's do more policing of their members than CA Approval. After the initial evaluation, which is no different than CA Approval, the process ends. RA is no different than the professional certification process. I have two graduate level certifications. Each required a very specific set for qualifications. Once established I was permitted to sit for the examination. Since passing all they want is my money. These certifications provide testament to my professional knowledge. Once the RA's admit a new member it's home free. I am starting to believe that more policing occurs in the BPPVE than in all of the RA combined. Not only can BPPVE pull the plug on Approval but can pull the plug on doing business entirely. IMHO, every state needs to take control like California and put the end to the political games of the RA's. Regards, Wes
What has California done that other states don't do? All states have the Constitutional power to regulate education within their borders. They all have some process for recognizing higher education institutions operating within their territory. California does seem to have more state-approved/recognized/whatever schools than other states. But while California might make it easier for new schools to initially form than other states, that really isn't an argument that California exercises exceptional oversight. Actually it's the opposite. But I think the main reason for the many California approved schools is cultural. It's a reflection of the whole independent-minded intellectual counter-culture in California. So I'm a little confused about what Wes wants us Californians to start exporting, and why he thinks that whatever it is that we are doing is so subversive to the regional accreditors. WASC seems to be doing fine here in California. It certainly doesn't seem to be feeling any threat from the state government, nor is the BPPVE protecting a flock of freedom-loving high-quality unaccredited universities that evil WASC cruely wants to crush.
I gathered that. I wanted to draw Wes out a little more on exactly what it is that California is doing that makes their process superior in his eyes. He seems to consider the BPPVE process superior to what any other state is doing, while I would think that many states, from New York (whose state approval process is recognized by the DoEd as an accreditor) to Oregon have superior systems. Certainly more rigorous. If CA serves as a possible model, it is in the size of its state-approved sector. No other state has the huge number of state-approved schools and institutes that California does, involving literally hundreds of degree-granting institutions, ranging from terrible to very interesting indeed. It may be that new schools are unusually easy to open in California. But as I suggested in my last post, it may be that much of the reason for this abundance is cultural, and you replied: True, except that I think that the abundance is also present in per-capita terms. That's what makes me think that somethig else is at work here. I live in the SF bay area and within a short drive of my home there is: 1. Andrew U. 2. Bay Cities Bible Institute 3. California Institute for Clinical Social Work 4. Center for Psychological Studies 5. Northern California Bible College 6. Northwestern Polytechnic U. 7. Oakland College of Law 8. U. of Creation Spirituality 9. Western Institute for Social Research 10. Frederick Taylor U. 11. Christian Life International Bible College 12. Art Institutes International of SF 13. Asia Pacific International U. 14. Institute for Advanced Study of Human Sexuality 15. Intercultural Institute of California 16. Psychoanalytic Institute of Northern California 17. San Francisco School of Law 18. San Francisco School of Art 19. Northern California Graduate U. 20. Institute of Buddhist Studies 21. International Technological U. 22. Lincoln Law School 23. Saratoga U. School of Law 24. Silicon Valley U. 25. The Transworld U. 26. U. of East-West Medicine And that's just a *partial* list of CA-approved schools within a 20 mile radius of me! I don't think that you will find anything similar elsewhere. New York city has a larger population than the whole bay area, so you would expect a similar abundance there. Chicago's metropolitan area is larger. I could be wrong, of course. If there are vast numbers state approved schools in other states, I wish somebody would turn me on to them, because I find this kind of "grass-roots" scholarship fascinating. I'm not talking about the Hawaii/S.Dakota-style mills of course. I mean schools that have passed some kind of scrutiny and are really performing research and education, such as it is. While I disagree with Wes that CA-approval is the equivalent of (or superior to) regional accreditation, not all of these schools and institutes are worthless either.
Regional accreditation isn't government organized, is it? I think that it's an organic growth among universities themselves. But I certainly agree with you that it has flaws. Or legitimate differences of opinion. I think that their policies are generally very similar. Unfortunately for this group, their differences are particularly noticeable when it comes to DL. The fact that they have differences is not really a bad thing. It probably reduces the effects of politics because it is hard to imagine the political pressures being exactly the same on each of the six accrediting commissions. It also allows for some degree of experimentation. If a particular innovation is controversial, one of the accreditors can try it and see if the sky falls in on them. I think that we are seeing that now with entirely-DL institutions. The North Central Association is taking the point on that one. I disagree strongly with that. The quality of universities seems remarkably uniform from region to region. I'm not sure what you mean by "bottom of the barrel", but I think that if you compare low-end schools, however you choose to define them, you don't see them congregating in any one region. There is no one region loaded with schools clearly worse han can be found anywhere else. I don't understand. How would breaking up the six regional accreditors and replacing them with 50 state government accreditors make policies more uniform or reduce the effects of politics? This sounds like an argument for the federal government taking over accreditation. I don't really see the advantage in that. Putting accreditation into the hands of one federal bureaucracy would not reduce the effects of politics on decision making, it would magnify it. And by creating one single national policy, you would simply amplify the charge that accreditation is monolithic and that it stifles educational diversity and innovation. Things are easy now. If you want RA-standard, pick RA schools and simply ignore the rest. There you have it, your single standard approximated more closely than fifty states ever could. That's what some members of this group do in practice, though they are routinely flamed for their alleged pro-RA prejudice. But I'm unclear on how one can combat that kind of "prejudice" by eliminating all alternatives to it. That's what you would be doing by establishing one federal standard. Call it "RA" or the "Department of Education", but it would still be the gatekeeper, exercising what might be perceived as arbitrary power.
Does it really matter? RA is intertwined with USDOE (being the highest form of accreditation recognized by the US federal government). While it may very well be an “organic growth”, the reality is………… First of all, I don’t remember stating that it would reduce or increase the effects of politics. Furthermore, whether or not the politics would be magnified or not is subject to personal opinion. While I‘m critical of politics, they will exist regardless of the accreditation format/system. That’s simply a fact of life. Second of all, how would the placing of the practice/policies/procedures of RA in the hands of the each state make accreditation less uniform? You’ve stated yourself that “the 6 RA’s policies are very similar” and that “the quality of universities seems remarkably uniform from region to region”. So, what’s the difference if the accrediting is being done by party A or party B if the practice/policies/procedures remain the same? Governments and their respective departments, like businesses, need to be continually monitored/streamlined to ensure effectiveness/efficiencies. Maybe RA needs an overhual (it's been a while). Why not simply take the existing olicies/practices/procedures from the 6 Regional accreditors and place them in the hands of the respective states which they represent? You’d rid yourselves of the “regions” and quite possible render each “state approval” systems redundant. I disagree. Regional Accrediting systems, similar to the US RA system do not exist in many other places other than the U.S. Government regulated accreditation systems exist in most countries and function quite well in that regard. i.e. Canadians regulate their accreditation via each respective province. These regulations are almost identical from one province to the next. The fact is that the vast majority of government accredited Canadian Universities are pretty damned good and are void of “amplified charges that accreditation is monolithic and that it stifles educational diversity and innovation”. In fact, quite the opposite it true. Do unaccredited universities exist in Canada? Of course they do. However, they are so overpowered by the accredited institutions that any individual with a double digit IQ can pick them out. That’s the power of good government regulated accreditation at work. (i.e. Vancouver’s UOP campus, which is not accredited by the province of BC, is generally not regarded as a well respected institution of higher learning there by employers, academia, and the public in general even though they’re technically regionally accredited by NCU). I agree that if you want RA standard, the choices are many. Unfortunately, it is difficult to ignore the rest from a broader perspective. The rest exist, like it or not. Ignoring the issue will not eliminate the debate. Given enough time, the issue could proliferate into something bigger: Suppose that CA applied for and were awarded USDOE recognition for their “state approved” system (like NY). All of a sudden, all of those crap (and some of the good) BPPVE schools become GAAP approved and recognized institutions. Hypothetically, the potential for this to occur exists. If it ever did occur, it would really unstabilize the whole RA vs. state approved debate, would it not? Quite true. However, from my observations, the same is true that some members of this group routinely flame those with alleged pro-alternative views. Bill, RA is pretty much the unofficial federal standard now (bearing in mind your statement that policies between the 6 RA’s are consistent throughout the country). If a state approved system (like CA’s) were deemed to be a viable alternative to RA, then I can see your point. However, according to what I’m hearing from this (and the former aed) discussion group, RA is king, DETC is limited and the rest is substandard. If this is in fact “the way it is” then I fail to see the necessity for substandard alternatives. A federal, or state regulated accreditation standards would force potentially new universities to meet viable accreditation criteria and existing “state approved” universities to improve or leave (assuming that most state approved universities are substandard to RA universities (except in NY or OR)).
