CPU had a number of well known grads and went down in flames. Whether that was just or not has been argued. For their time they were innovative. All CPU PhD graduates seem to get painted with derision by people who will say that the degree is a "correspondence PhD" and then point out the damning parts of the California state report that yanked authorization. Yet, even the California state government says that degrees earned during certain periods are still legal for use. Also, at one point the State of California apparently deemed them equivalent to accredited PhDs when the state had the "full institutional approval" category before regulation was moved to a new Department and schools were "authorized"? From Wikipedia: "On June 2, 1986, the California Department of Education granted all of CPU's programs full institutional approval for a three-year period, ruling that CPU's curricula met California Education Code Section 94310(b)'s statutory requirement of being "consistent in quality with curricula offered by appropriate established accredited institutions which are recognized by the United States Department of Education."" So, should CPU PhD's who earned their PhD during the "full institutional approval" period be treated differently even in comparison to those who earned it during the "authorized" period. I realize you cannot force that as organizations and institutions can make their own rules about acceptance.