CPU & the Republic of Malawi

In my work, I regularly apply a principle which won't be found in any college textbooks. I call it "The Grandma Test."

The test is actually pretty straightforward, and you don't even need a real live "Grandma" to make it work. Take a story.. any story will do. It can be the explanation of how a fish got away, or the alibi a criminal suspect is offering up, or the explanation of why a United States university would seek legitimation and degree-granting authority through a third-world, one-university African country that most people have never heard of, with 50% literacy and per-capita income hovering around $200.

Now, imagine what Grandma's reaction would be if you told this story to her.. sweet, lovable Grandma that likes everyone and bakes really good pies. If Grandma would hear that story and say "Bulls**t," the story has failed the "Grandma Test" and is highly suspect at best.

Grandma would hear this particular story and tell me that it's a back-door attempt at pseudo-accreditation, for no legitimate purpose. Except, possibly, to tap into a potentially huge pool of people who MIGHT take CPU seriously. Discussions about GAAP, the Association of Commonwealth Universities, or the evil operatives of California government are nothing but smoke and mirrors.

 

Interesting point on the use of the phrase "Black Deans"; but also interesting is that the site visit team were so ignorant that they simply stated that the two deans under discussion had degrees from unaccreditted universities. If you raised the spectre of semantism at work in this phrase I might even agree with you. But the fact is they were persons of color with excellent degrees from excellent and well-known universities. Yet, the site visitation committee didn't know enough about foreign universities to properly ascertain the value of the educations of these two men - and, if they didn't know enough to begin with (as a site visit team) on what basis would they claim that the universities the two Deans graduated from were "unaccredited"?

On Carr and Crews and friendship - I don't have any info from Dr. Les Carr on this, although I certainly have attempted to get some info, with little success. I did, however, get some info from a third party who was on the preiphery over the years - it seems that Carr and Crews, according to my source, were kept apart by the third owner. Crews was also the President (brilliant, in my opinion, but with a "very sensitive ego" from what I have heard).

It seems (I say "seems" here) that no one interfered with Dr. Crews and his decisions when he was president (20 years). Perhaps that is why Carr is attempting to distance himself from Crews, stating that he 'wasn't in charge' when Crews was present. Also, the rumor is that Crews had little use for collaborating with alumni, whereas Carr really seems to go out of his way to communicate. But then, what does he really have to lose at this point. It's all but lost anyway, right? Right...
Earon

 

Sounds like a neat test to me - a bit like the kid who said Bulls...t to the idea that the Emporer was really wearing those nice new clothes.

But new paradigms always get a lot of criticism when they first rear their head. I'm mostly talking about how things will/could develop in terms of cross-border relationships in the delivery of educational products (degrees, etc.). We're gonna see some very intersting stuff happen in the near future. We've seen the beginning of it with Greenwich U, (although GU's "accreditation" was from an island with 1500 people and no universities). CCU's accreditation is with a country boasting 10,000,000 people, a six college university, membership in the Association of Commonwealth Universites, etc. There is little comparison.

And it certainly is easy to sit on the sidelines and be a cynically chartered member of the peanut gallery (have done it myself at times), commenting without really looking into something (I've done that too, I confess).

But more appropriately, as my 81 year-old mother in Newfoundland says about life these days "It's all gone to the dogs, boy...gone to the dogs, it tis".
Earon

 

From what I understand (and please correct me if I'm wrong), the "black Deans" have degrees from non-US (though GAAP) schools. Maybe, just maybe, that's what caused the confusion among the site visitation team? After all, it's not like fake universities are a strictly US phenomena...

As far as the CPPVE visit, I find it a bit of a stretch to think that the CPPVE, Attorney General's Office, and the entire California court system are in cahoots. At what point will CPU/CCU accept the word of the court system? The US Supreme Court? Will US Marshals have to lock and seal the various offices in California and Montana (can't do that in Malawi, unfortunately)?

In any event, as far as I know, the term "black Deans" originated from Dr. Carr, which you then repeated. It certainly did not originate with me, and knowing a bit about politics, I strongly suspect that it did not originate with the CPPVE.

I've never lived in California, but I have enough faith in the system to believe that they (CA) wouldn't be so stupid and foolish as to deny reapproval to a school just because they happen to have two "black Deans" with non-US (though legitimate) credentials.

If there was a "desperation light" on Dr. Carr's desk, my opinion is that it would be flashing to beat the band right about now.

Bruce

 

Well, first of all, you are functioning (quite well, I might add) in the same manner as the chief opposition party in Canada .... you're chosen stance is to be a skeptic (I assume, based on your own questions (nothin' wrong with that). And my chosen stance is that there is more going on here than meets the eye, based on my own questions. So I've been carrying out my own investigation (for five years). When Les Carr realized that I had already knew a lot about the inner workings of this whole mess (based on researching documents) he decided to turn all of the documents over to me to complete the picture. I'm publishing all of these documents to http://www.altcpualumni.org, so that any members of the public that would like to see for themselves could have a look.

I am told that CPU of California and CPU-Montana are completely separate. CPU-Montana is now enamed Columbnia Commonwealth University. The matter being appealed in US Federal Court is entirely to do with CPU California. It is my belief that CPU-California will fight this all the way -as far as it can go (I've seen enough evidence to support this belief).

Yes, the "Black Deans" are Carr's words and, yes, the schools are what you call "GAAP" a term (I believe) promoted by John Bear, based on the accounting version of GAAP (generally accepted accounting principles?). The term GAAP wasn't being used, to my knowledge, to describe universities in 1995, when the site visit occurred. My point on this particular matter of the black deans is that a site visit team should either have some knowledge of foreign education or have the resources to verify equivalency (such as the UNESCO handbook). Otherwise the site visit team report is flawed and the site visit team appears inept, casting a shadow of doubt on the whole report.

But the site visit team report cited multiple irregularities, (which I have gone thru 'with a fine tooth comb'). The stated irregularities seemed credible until I read, about a month later, the report of the independent consultant who had a hand in actually writing the same (new) regulations the site visit team stated CPU was not in compliance with. The consultant refuted almost all of the team's findings, discovering over 80 "errors of fact".

As to the CPPVE, district attorney, and appeals court all being in cahoots:
This saga occurred over a five-year period. I certainly don't believe that there was a conspiracy involving all of these entities in 1995. Here's the chronology of events as I know them:

1995- Bad site team report of CPU-California
1995- Consultant's study and response to CPPVE
1995- CPPVE site team fails CPU-California - no reapproval.
1996- CPU-California appeals
1996- CPPVE ordered closed by CAlifornia Governor
1997 - Administrative court rules in favor of CPPVE - does not give CPU-California time to represent itself with an attorney - Dr. Crews is forced to defend CPU.
1997 - CPU-California continues operating while launching an appeal.
1997 - CPPVE - in its final meeting, issues the paperwork to pass the CPU-California matter to the attorney general and the BPPVE.
1998 - CPU-California - the Indian Accreditation (a very stupid act - I'm holding my nose on this one)
1999 - CPU-California - appeals in progress - there are several. CPU-California loses court case - launches further appeals
2000 - CPU-California loses further appeals
2000 - (December) CPU opens CPU-Montana, and entirely separate CPU
2001 - CPU-Montans gets accreditation via Malawi (which has its own university, six colleges, listed in UNESCO - is a member of Association of Commwealth Universities - country with 10,000,000 people.
2001 - CPU-Montana begins plans to start an education mission in Malawi (serving Africa) and to seek further accreditations
2001 - CPU-Montana changes its name to Columbia Commonwealth University

To sum up, I've been keeping a close eye on these events since late 1995, when I first started posting on alt.ed.distance (is it still going?). My interest was that my two degree programs were from CPU, and what was going on with the CPPVE was in direct contradiction to my experience of CPU and their staff. So, for a while I was quite confused, and then I started asking questions wherever I could. I don't really believe that a few chickenshit bureaucrats from California are gonna be successful in shutting CPU-California down. But we shall see.
More later,
Earon

 

This thread is just so very interesting. It seems Earon has covered every single aspect in his defense regarding the legitimacy of the "new" CPU. Above all, it is already awkward for an american school to seek for foreign accreditation. It seems to me it's just another bullshit for a degreemill shopping around for foreign accreditation in an effort to avoid US regional accreditation (or to "help" other countries "pioneering" distance learning). Sorry to be blunt, but since Earon's a CPU alumnus, and the info he receives is from CPU (or whatever their name is now), I never expected much. For a second, I thought he works at CPU.

I admire Earon's courage and dedication in involving, and commenting on the California education politics, the judges, and so on, to justify that CPU is legit. But again, if one's degree is from a RA school, one will almost never have to do the mentioned.

My 2 cents.

Samuel

 

This is an unfortunate misrepresentation of what Earon's been doing. Yes, he's hopeful things for CPU (CCU?) turn around. But he's told everyone around here the good and the bad, and quite a bit of each.

There is certainly plenty about the Columbia Pacific/Commonwealth issue to talk about. There's no need to discuss Earon's (or anyone else's) motives, character, etc. It is a sign of weakness when someone substitutes a personal attack for an argument about the issues.

Rich Douglas

 

A lot of serious and well-intentioned people pursued and earned CPU degrees, and for a healthy stretch of time CPU was a recognized leader in distance learning, particularly at the graduate level. Earon and others who are part of this effort are doing what pro-active alums do at any institution: They are advocating for the legitimacy of their school and their degrees.

Yes, it can be said that CPU's lack of RA is at the heart of the problem. But let's also acknowledge that the regional accreditor covering California has been one of the least progressive in its attitude towards DL institutions.

I don't know enough about the CPU/State Approval situation in California to have an informed final opinion on it. But based on the documents I've seen (admittedly, what Earon posted on his website) and my own experiences as a former government lawyer in another state, I'd say there is a legitimate question as to whether CPU was treated fairly.

And I'll repeat something I've said earlier: I'm usually delighted when a non-traditional and/or DL institution gets regional accreditation. It's a sign of progress, tho sometimes tempered by a degree of institutional conformity.

But I'm concerned when DL advocates start to adopt RA as the main and even sole measuring stick of institutional integrity or quality. To me, in some situations it can be like siding with one's captors. There's an ongoing tension there that reflects nuance, subtlety, and plenty of gray area. We shouldn't forget that.

 

Has anyone yet noted or commented on or explained the fact that CPU (or CCU's) Malawi accreditation comes not from the Ministry of Education, Sports & Culture but from another ministry, perhaps Labor.

Might it be interesting to know from what school Malawian president Dr. Bakili Muluzi, Labor Minister Dr. Kaliyoma Phumisa, and State Minister Dr. Dumbo Lemani earned their doctorates? (I just don't have the time right now...)

John Bear

 

I understand, from CCU's President Dr. Les Carr, that there is at least one alumni of CPU working hard on this effort in Malawi. Perhaps there are more.
Earon

 

Hi Rich,

You've stated that "there's no need to discuss [Earon's] motives, character"...and so on. These are, at least, some very fundamental indicators of credibility. You cannot blame me (nor anyone) for my skeptism.

Nobody has said anything about Earon's character. In fact, I do not know who he is, but a CPU alumnus. All I'm saying is that it's perculiar for an american institution to acquire foreign accreditation (even Northcentral goes to Arizona, not to the West Indies or some other third world countries). And because Earon's information seems to be gathered chiefly from the CPU administrators, I think the info he gathers will almost always favor CPU in general even though he brings in the bad's of CPU periodically to present a seemingly "balanced" viewpoint. Above all, his favortism towards CPU is obvious as one can observe in Earon's previous post.

By the same token, I'm certain that readers (like me) will know what to digest and what not to. To point out, you've stated that there are plenty of CPU issues to be discussed. By the same token, I believe this is the same for MIGS. Even though CEU doesn't even have a doctoral program in Mexico, and offers a laughable, IMO, Ph.D program thru distance learning, you've defended MIGS/CEU's legitmacy. Why??? I take it that's because you're a student there. Likewise, David Yamada's a current student at another unaccredited institution (regardless of his RA credentials). In Portugal, US degrees that are not regionally accredited are considered publicly: degrees from degree mills. Nevermind about a school's philosopy on non-traditional approach, government politics, conspiracies and other laughable external justifications, unaccepted and non-respected are unaccepted and non-respected.

my 2 cents

Samuel

 

Hi Rich,

You've stated that "there's no need to discuss [Earon's] motives, character"...and so on. These are, at least, some very fundamental indicators of credibility. You cannot blame me (nor anyone) for my skeptism.

Nobody has said anything about Earon's character. In fact, I do not know who he is, but a CPU alumnus. All I'm saying is that it's perculiar for an american institution to acquire foreign accreditation (even Northcentral goes to Arizona, not to the West Indies or some other third world countries). And because Earon's information seems to be gathered chiefly from the CPU administrators, I think the info he gathers will almost always favor CPU in general even though he brings in the bad's of CPU periodically to present a seemingly "balanced" viewpoint. Above all, his favortism towards CPU is obvious as one can observe in Earon's previous post.

By the same token, I'm certain that readers (like me) will know what to digest and what not to. To point out, you've stated that there are plenty of CPU issues to be discussed. By the same token, I believe this is the same for MIGS. Even though CEU doesn't even have a doctoral program in Mexico, and offers a laughable, IMO, Ph.D program thru distance learning, you've defended MIGS/CEU's legitmacy. Why??? I take it that's because you're a student there. Likewise, David Yamada's a current student at another unaccredited institution (regardless of his RA credentials). In Portugal, US degrees that are not regionally accredited are considered publicly: degrees from degree mills. Nevermind about a school's philosopy on non-traditional approach, government politics, conspiracies and other laughable external justifications, unaccepted and non-respected are unaccepted and non-respected.

my 2 cents

Samuel

 

With all due respect to Samuel's point about my alleged (in his mind, anyway) defense of the legitimacy of the new CPU (CCU), I am merely reporting information, from a research stance of naturalistic/participant observation. I'm sure there are some here who have studied qualitative forms of research, and that those folks would know what I'm talking about.

Yes, it is true that I had been involved with CPU-California for 10 years as a student, but there is no attempt on my part to defend CPU. I have written good things about and bad things about CPU. I have attempted to stay neutral on the matter and be objective.

But I have taken a particular interest in the CPPVE's 1995 attempt to shut down CPU, something which I now believe was intentional as early as 2.5 years prior to the now famous 1995 site visit (which, incidently took 1/2 the time it normally took in the past... a rather hasty effort?). The above belief is based in part on court ttestimony of a high level former CPPVE official, who stated the CPPVE intent quite clearly. I have also on many occasions reported my concerns pertaining to CPU, particularly over the past five years (it's all on the deja archives, now google I believe?).

What I generally invite people to do is become as researchers ... become informed, so that when one comments on the issues surrounding CPU-California s/he does so from an informed position and can really address those issues. Oh .... I actually learned that at CPU while I was doing three years of research toward writing my 400 page Masters Thesis.

Now...let's take the theme of foreign accreditation. It's brand new. Greenwich was the first. I believe (British Open University?) has also done it in the US (although from a very strong GAAP position in their home country). CPU-Montana (now CCU has now done it also).

We are going to see a lot more of foreign accreditation as we get deeper into a global trading economony. It is the new thing, multi-national corporations ... multi-national schools - some of them absolutely terrible. The paradigm is about to shift and the ability of Americans to understand this is somewhat limited (at the moment). When we begin to see U of Phoenix, Walden, Nova, Harvard, and some others, particularly British universities, get in on this trend it will start to become the norm, at least in our minds.

As for CPU-Montana (now CCU): if CCU is able to obtain legitimate accreditation beginning with a foreign country, progressing thru the Commonwealth (about 50 countries) and then, or at the same time the US - who really cares? What we want as consumers and consumer advocates is a good product (the education, the public, trade, and academic acceptance of the education, the ability of the education to meet its stated objectives, satisfied students and alumni, a satisfied public, and a decent school - and maybe some other things. Accreditation and GAAP pretty much guarantees a reasonable level for accomplishing the above - in whatever country.

Greenwich and Norfolk Island: Norfolk Island
has 1500 inhabitants, no university, but for awhile, the ability to pass a law stating that GU was accredited. Malawi - has 10,000,000 (read 10 million) residents, a university comprising 6 colleges including a decent medical school, membership in the Association of African Universities, the Association of Commonwealth Universities, and listing in the UNESCO Handbook (International Association of Universities).
There's a big difference between malawi and Norfolk Island.

But as far as I'm concerned this Malawi accreditation of CCU is not quite enough (but a good starting place). CPU-California had 20+ years of life and didn't get to accreditation. I had seen lots of paperwork related to preparation for applying for accreditation in the mid-nineties, but it may have been a useless task. WASC, the accreditor for California, wasn't going to allow accreditation of distance-only schools. There had to be a residency factor. CPU, I am told, was going to challenge this. At the same time a school could not apply for accreditation without full institutional approval in California. CPU-California had approval for many years. As early as 1992 executives in charge of the newly formed CPPVE (operational in 1991) were gunning for CPU to put it out of business (court testimony of a high-level whistle-blower former CPPVE employee). In the case of CPU-California the attemt to proceed toward accreditation was futile, not achievable.

What CPU should have done in the late 1980's is expand to a state such as Montana, or other friendlier state with a distance-ed friendly accreditor and launch the effort from that state. Instead, I believe, they got too complacent. The $$$ was rolling in - CPU was an acknowledged leader in distance education - why bother? The previous is just my theory. I don't have any hard (documented)facts to base it on...yet.

Now, some more for Samuel. You're jumping to conclusions in your statement. The info that I have accessed has come from 5 years of hard methodical research, from everwhere else but CPU (mostly tracking websites, interviewing people, literature, court documents, you know ... scholarly investigation). Why, I've even had a few exchanges with our good friend John Bear and gotten some of his more juicy stories (sorry I can't talk about those until John's memoirs come out).

I began corresponding with Les Carr (president of CPU) in 2000. He was quite surprised about how much I knew about all the goings-on. I knew every judgement that occurred in the CPU appeals withing 24 hours and I began passing that info out to CPU alumni members, who were starved for information. I believe this blackout on information was mostly due to
(1) Litigation in process
(2) CPU was almost in physical and mental shock - resources dwindling, barebones skeleton staff working part-time. CPU was almost reduced to nothing. But these folks, the core staff, are die-hards and just won't quit. They will actually work for nothing in a desperate situation such as they were in.

When Les realized I already knew more than most he offered to start turning over third-party files to me. These files are just now starting to show up in my mailbox. I have told Dr. Les Carr that I will only place documents on my website if they are confirmable - no statements without confirmability - and those confirming documents go on the site as backup so that my case is rock solid. So if there's a claim of Malawi accreditation there will also be a PDF of the original accreditation document. If there's a claim that the three appeals judges were former district attornies who worked in the same location as the anti-CPU district attorney I will use their own biographies to prove my point, taken from the court websites.

Finally, you are right in your statement that if one's degree is from an RA school one would never have had to do what I'm doing. But that's not the point. There's a much bigger picture at work here. I love debate, I also love justice, and I have great passion for the fact that the 60+ CPU alumni that I know (mostly teaching at traditional universities) state without reservation that they worked hard for their degrees (and all of them have pre-existing RA credentials so there is something for them to compare to). Most of those folks have been very burned by this past five years and the CPU circumstances. I care about these people and I don't have much use for idiots who shoot off their mouths without knowing what they are talking about. So I'm posting "facts" for interested parties to become informed with, not just mouth-foaming useless speculation.
Cheers,
Earon

 

I don't think that anyone takes Greenwich's attempt seriously. Australia certainly doesn't. OU-US is a separately incorporated American university in Delaware, and is seeking regional accreditation in its own region, from Middle States.

I'm an American and therefore paradigm-challenged, so humor me. If a school dodges the accepted procedures where it is at, isn't the burden of proof placed on it to explain why? And, more importantly, isn't the burden of proof placed on it to demonstrate that the alternative foreign standards it adopts are at least equally as credible as those that it has avoided?

Why would any of these established institutions even think of looking for some obscure offshore accreditation-haven where standards are few and poorly enforced?

St. Kitts? It is exactly that attitude: a country is a country and it doesn't matter which one, that encourages "less than wonderful" schools to look for those countries with the least demanding academic oversight. That way they get their treasured GAAP status, and then act insulted if anyone fails to kiss the ring.

Sure. But the difference in size is probably irrelevant. The question to be asked here is what kind of higher education quality assurance mechanism Malawi has, and how was it actually employed in this particular case. For example, did any kind of African accreditation team fly out and make a site visit to Montana?

Since Malawi only has one university that has been established for decades and is a member of the Association of Commonwealth Universities, my guess is that Malawi's education ministry has only a rudimentary higher education QA mechanism if it has one at all.

In my opinion it is a disaster.

CPU actually had some credibility among us Californians, at least here in the bay area. The court cases badly hurt that. And first the Fallon Shoshone fiasco, and now this, has just about stripped CPU/CCU of any shred of dignity it had left, in my opinion. What its administrators are doing is obvious and transparent, and only serves to suggest that California was right about them.

 

However, foreign accreditation going in the other direction is not unknown. There are several universities in Latin America which have achieved U.S. regional accreditation by SACS. They include:

Fundacion Universidad de las Americas-Puebla
Accredited

Instituto Centroamericano de Administracion de Empresas
Accredited

Instituto Tecnologico y de Estudios Superiores de Monterrey
Accredited

Universidad de Monterrey
Candidate

Universidad de las Americas - A.C.
Accredited


Tom Nixon

 

I disagree with you, Bill, but only slightly. I believe the CPU situation was a complete disaster after the Fallon Shoshone fiasco, announced by CPU's former President, Dr. Richard Crews, (psychiatry-Harvard) in 1998. I believe further that from there the disaster only became worse (how worse can it possibly get?).

Now things are looking slightly better ....duhhhh...they haven't bit the dust yet - jasus...they're still moving.
If CCU was to retain only this accreditation in Malawi I would not support them (nor do I recommend CCU to anyone at this moment). Staying with only the Malawi accreditation would certainly have me agreeing with you and others wholeheartedly - specifically that 'CCU is just a degree mill trying to fake appearing credible' - working between the lines so to speak. The alumni folk that I'm in contact with hold the same position and are hammering it quite hard. But let's give them (CCU) a chance to prove what they say they are going to do (and yes, continue to be rough on them).

CCU says that got a raw deal as CPU in California. There's court evidence to indicate something was amiss with the CPPVE's intent to close them down without due process. OK...so that's in Federal Court; let's see where it goes (you're gonna see anyway). A combination of the US Federal Court case and what CCU does next will provide once and for all just what is going on here. You really don't know what is going on...but you have your opinion. I know some of what is going on, but not much, and I have my opinion. Your opinion and mine are not exactly at opposite poles, but the process isn't over yet. Give it some time...and continue to be welcome to your opinion, and continue to hammer CPU (now CCU).
Earon