Columbia Southern University

Come on now Rich, don't get so hot an bothered. I give, I give.... for the record I think organizations like the WAUC should be outlawed, but that’s my opinion... I pointed out the disclaimer because I think they use the dislaimer to skate on just this side of what is actually considered legal in the U.S. while being purposefully deceptive.

The WAUC is a fraud but at what point does the DETC consider accreditation from an organization like the WAUC a "deceptive" practice?

What the WAUC is doing isn’t necessarily illegal is it? I mean as far as I know they are not committing fraud or any federal crimes that I know of are they?

Make no mistake I’m not defending the WAUC what I’m looking for is why the DETC would accredit a school like Columbia Southern when at the time of their review they were claiming WAUC accreditation if indeed doing so violated the DETC policy? Do you believe they are motivated by money? More schools? A larger sphere of influence? Or perhaps did they simply not consider that a deceptive practice?

Sure their accreditation is less than worthless (the WAUC’s), and I believe that they purposely attempt to be misleading but does that constitute a deceptive practice according to the DETC? Since after all we are talking about a DETC policy here.

Perhaps I should have pointed out earlier when I defined deceptive practices that the lie must be in an overt effort to defraud...such as in item "A" above. Which would necassarily mean the practice is in fact illegal.

 

A degree granted at a time when the school was still unaccredited would still be considered a degree from an unaccredited school, even if the school later achieves accreditation.

 

Short, but to the point and accurate.

Abner

 

friendorfoe re WAUC: "...at no point do they outright lie about who they are or what they do..."

John: I'm not so sure. As I reported in Bears' Guide, when Taft University successfully sued WAUC, it was learned that, despite their assurances to the contrary, WAUC had never made a single visit to any of the schools they had accredited. Not one. And their claim to be a non-profit organization also proved untrue.

My favorite WAUC moment is the time they accredited Edison University, within weeks of its establishment, run from the federal prison cell of convicted LaSalle University founder James Kirk.

 

Thank you.

 

This will probably come across negative, but I do have to wonder about the merits of posting job applicants credentials on public message boards and taking actions based upon the opinions of other posters.

Just somewhere it triggers my internal warning flag. I would personally recommend double checking any of this information you act upon with real facts. While I’m certain that it is accurate, and do not challenge any of it, never-the-less, you probably have a fiduciary responsibility to your firm to act in good faith that others here do not.

 

I think that as long as the applicant's identity isn't revealed, asking others for opinions on the questioned qualification is a fine idea.

Of course. But the discussion here might help clarify what the issues are and what kind of additional information is needed.

Is this really a Ph.D. or is it a DBA? When was it earned? (That will need to be verified with the school.) Was that date before or after Columbia Southern's accreditation by DETC? Would a DETC degree work for this position? Would a non-accredited degree work? What was the nature and credibility of Columbia Southern's doctoral programs before DETC accreditation? Are misleading accreditation claims relevant to that judgement? And more.

Obviously Scott will have to make his own decisions. The board can't make them for him. But the board might help him make a more informed and thoughtful decision.

 

Agree. Only other concern would be if somehow the information is wrong or misinturpreted, and the applicant find this thread, recognized his/her credential on it, and considers someone liable for actions taken on the provided data… given that this thread is identified as an HR department individual soliciting HR advice from a public forum..

 

John, I remember reading about that now and in fact this was one of the reasons I checked into Taft when looking at MBA programs. I had since forgotten the details so thank you for reminding me.

So if that is the case and the WAUC has been “caught” lying about being non-profit (which last I checked is illegal at least for taxation and accounting purposes if not more) and they have been exposed for not actually visiting school sites when they articulate (somewhat) that this is a requirement of the WAUC, then how can the DETC not recognize that this is a deceptive practice especially when there is case precedent to that fact?

From the WAUC’s own accreditation standards I quote:

“Any university or college admitted to WAUC may also be asked to submit to an on-site visit of its facilities by the evaluators, at the school's expense.” (emphasis mine)

From a strictly legal standpoint though is the WAUC skirting the visitation requirement by using the word “may” in their accreditation criteria? Did they change this after the Taft lawsuit?

As defined by the U.S. Dept. of Education:

“The goal of accreditation is to ensure that education provided by institutions of higher education meets acceptable levels of quality. Accrediting agencies, which are private educational associations of regional or national scope, develop evaluation criteria and conduct peer evaluations to assess whether or not those criteria are met. Institutions and/or programs that request an agency's evaluation and that meet an agency's criteria are then "accredited" by that agency.” (emphasis mine).

Which by that definition an accreditation agency is:

1.) To ensure a level of quality. (This has proven to be subjective however as even the 6 regional accrediting agencies have differing standards though quality is nonetheless apparent.) So how subjective is this allowed to be?
2.) Are voluntary.
3.) Are based upon peer evaluations of which the criteria are determined by the issuing agency.

Another question however is that in the above statement from the U.S. Dept. of Ed. it says “…which are private educational associations of regional or national scope…”, is this in order to establish a reference point for the legality of a non GAAP accreditation agency to be called into question in your opinion?

Is there case precedent or a provided for legal definition of accreditation that may be applicable to public policy, law enforcement or at the very least civil lawsuits?

In other words does GAAP hold legal weight?

I know, a long winded post but I’m exploring the rabbit hole if you will.

 

To me, claiming "accreditation" that is completely worthless could be a textbook definition of "deliberately misleading".

 

Hello David,

What you're saying is true; however, Scott has not revealed the identity of the candidate, so there is no privacy issue. He is seeking the advice of the people on this board, many of whom have years of professional expertise in the area of legitimate and illegitmate education credentials.

It seems to me that Scott is using one of his available networks to help him in his quest to make an informed decision--a good thing for a leader to do. Rich Douglas' dissertation research has demonstrated that many people in Scott's position make poor hiring choices based on a lack of knowledge about accreditation. On more than one occassion, I have saved my own institutions the embarrassment of hiring people with bogus credentials. I applaud Scott for what he is doing.

Just my 1 1/2 cents...

 

Columbia Southern PhD

I was astonished to find a professional expert witness advertising on the web who has an MS 1995 and PhD 1996 from Columbia Southern "University". It would take about 10 seconds to destroy his credibility on the stand.

Then again, the next expert witness on the list had a PhD from Rutherford University as well as degrees from Mellen (sic.) University and Century.

Who hires these guys?

 

warguns: "Who hires these guys?"

John: In the Columbia Southern case, a lawyer who is satisfied with an expert with a nationally accredited degree. In the Rutherford case, a fool.

Twice I've been an expert witness for the purpose of exposing the credential of the other side's expert witness. One was an automotive engineer with a totally phony Columbia State University degree. The other was a forensic arborologist* with a phony Somerset University degree. In the latter case,the lawyer who hired me said she would be writing to the opposing lawyers in more than 300 cases where the forensic arborologist had successfully testified.

What does a forensic arborologist do, I hear you wondering. This was a case where a family, believing a certain tree was on their property, cut it down. Turned out to be on the neighbor's property, which they freely agreed. The university forestry department valued the cut tree at $200. The forensic arborologist valued it at $50,000. The jury laughed.

 

I don't think so. The expert with the Columbia Southern MS and PhD got them in 1995 and 1996 before Columbia Southern was DETC accredited (2001). Indeed, Columbia Southern had to discontinue this phony PhD program to get DETC accreditation.