From Degree Mill to Accredited Schools

What about price? That is my primary selector...

I am looking at DL because of price, not because one is better or more convenient!

 

With this modification, Kristie's classification is more acceptable now. There is no way DETC and ACICS (or national accreditation) will come before RA.

 

The assessement route has got to be the lowest cost altenative to a regionally accredited degree in the US. Followed by night and/or weekend programs. Most distance learning programs are not lower cost than regualr classroom programs, often they are more expensive (access fees, shipping costs, etc.).

For lowest cost, a local state college or community college with a night and/or weekend program is uusally the lowest cost alternative (after "buying" a degree). And yes there are exceptions to this.

I choose a true distance learning program because it was the only alterntative to quitting work for three to four years.

 

Myoptimism: "I like this system also. While it is in no way all encompassing, it is probably the 'fastest and easiest' way to describe differences in quality and utility. I think numbers 3 and 4 need to be transposed though.

3. National Accreditation
4. Regional Accreditation


Cehi: By ranking 1. No Accreditation and 2, State Accreditation ahead of the above list, I agree 100%.

 

Let's look at a different scenario, say a Duke MBA and a Stanford masters in engineering versus the same degrees from a Cal State U. The Duke and Stanford degrees can be completed via DL, while the Cal State degrees cannot. So would the Cal State graduates have the more prestigious and employable degrees?

Tony Piña
(Who works at Cal State San Bernardino, which nobody seems to confuse with either Duke or Stanford)

 

I would rate any process that requires a person to sit through years of study to be more difficult than the distance learning process that can be completed in months. If I was aware of the method that was used to get the diploma and all things being somewhat equal I, as an employer, would give an edge to the resident degree. The interchange of ideas, the competition with other students, contacts that may be called on in the future, all in all a better more usable method. I like the distance education method but don't believe that it's as good. It doesn't deliver enough new learning or allow enough contact with other students or with teachers. I don't mean that I see distance learning as much less, but only a small difference. In fact some distance schools require much new work and are very competitive programs, but the easier RA programs seem to be very popular. I see few posts talking about how good the education or how much they've learned, but mostly see statements about how easy some school is or how much credit they will take. You can't want it fast and as easy as possible and at the same time want the greatest quality. Get quality RA distance degrees and I believe you have the same as the good residency schools. If you want to compete with the best residency schools, you must get degrees from the best distance schools. Quality residency=Quality distance. There are distance diplomas that require several years of new work and restrict the amount of testing credit or transfer credit. I rate these as a good delivery system and comparable to residency diplomas.

 

Isn't Cal State San Bernardino a department of Oxford?

 

There's an "apples and oranges" aspect to all this. Lots of separate issues are getting smeared together as if they were synonymous with the DL/on-campus distinction.

On one hand you have programs that are intended to impart education, to take a person all the way from zero to competency. On the other hand you have prior learning assessment programs that seek to assess the standard of learning that people have acquired elsewhere.

You can't judge the latter by the same criteria used to judge the former. Quality of instruction is critical to the first model but of low relevance to the second. And you can't simply dismiss schools that specialize in the latter model as automatically inferior either, since even places like the University of California offer their students challenge exams.

There's the issue of the credibility of the assessments, in both the new-learning and the prior-learning-assessment models. Can passing a multiple choice exam be as credible an assessment of learning as passing written exams, laboratory and practical exercises and class participation? But the arguable fact that some schools use a weak assessment standard doesn't imply all do or that the prior-learning-assessment model is inherently inferior. Assessments of new learning can be weak too.

Then there's the element of school prestige. Prestige and quality obviously are positively correlated, but they are not identical. Is a degree from a weak program at a prestige school really "better" than a degree from an excellent program offered by a less renowned school?

Finally there's the issue of DL vs. in-person. DL programs can employ a wide variety of assesment methods. They vary in prestige. Most of them emphasize imparting new knowledge, but a few are especially friendly to PLA. But the in-person programs vary in all of these ways as well.

These seem to all be reasonably independent variables. It doesn't really help to confuse questions of distance delivery with different educational issues.

 

Just a few comments:

1) I don't equate time with quality of learning. If a student is able to learn a semester's amount of material in two weeks, should he/she be made to sit through an additional sixteen weeks of lectures for the benifit of the other students.

2) The various lists of "100 Best Colleges" is a subjective judgement based, usually, on factors such as acceptance rate, graduation rate, etc. None of these factors are relevant to the quality of education provided in their individual departments.

3) The prestigious schools have created a cycle inwhich their name recognition allows their graduates to gain advantages in employment, which in turn adds to the reputation of the school.

 

kf5k,

Does your poor opinion of distance education comes from your experience at Chadwick University, an unaccredited school that you describe as "less demanding" and that others describe as a "degree mill?"

Your suggestion that distance education programs do not provide significant new learning nor significant interaction between and among the students and teachers is simply not true for the vast majority of legitimate, accredited schools.

Jeff

 

At Chadwick, I had to complete 10 courses to receive an MBA.
(I believe Chadwick has since increased the courses to 12 courses.) In 7 courses, the essay answers required footnotes and bibliographies. In addition, a capstone project (thesis) was required. In Chadwick's 1998 catalog, it says that its students must sit for proctored exams.

Though I had 8 years of accounting experience (at the time), I earned no "life experience" credits.

Now I'm on my way to prepare for the CPA exam.

Regards,
Working1, CBM, MBA, BS, BA, AAS, AAS, AA, CMA candidate
(Yes, my other degrees are from RA colleges.)

 

When you compare the best B&M with the "not so" best DL, it won't be a good comparison.

Here is a question, how would you compare a B&M school that you had the same test, same materials, same assignments, taken over the same period of time as a DL school.

The above quote says B&M years, while DL months. I am in a program that takes longer in the DL because of it being a lock step program (2.5 years vs on campus 2 years). It also has longer summer sessions.

 

Ah, you risk serious shark attack. I have two degrees from Chadwick, BS, MBA. You always must remember on this forum- All RA/DL schools are exactly the same- Wonderful, and the Approved schools are also equal in quality- Degree Mills. If you just tell everyone that their favorite RA school is U.Cal. Berkeley or Harvard they'll permit you to swim safely in their little pond.

 

kf5k, You are correct. I just wanted to explain my education experience to those interested.
Thank you.

 

So what are you suggesting, "kf5k"? That because you think that some RA schools are better than others, that somehow implies that we should all embrace non-accredited schools?

That's gonna need some very fancy argument.

I think that people can safely expect that all regionally accredited schools meet the expected standard. That's inherent in what accreditation associations are, namely associations of schools that agree to accept each other's credits and degrees. The University of California at Berkeley happily accepts community college credit.

Obviously some schools do more than just meet the expected standard. They are special in some way. It might be that they are doing valuable research, or they might offer unusual programs. Of course, illustrating that kind of stuff is going to require a little persuasion.

The problem with non-accredited schools is that there is no real reason for anyone unfamiliar with them to assume they meet any standard at all. In fact, given the fact that so many non-accredited schools are jokes and scams, the safest policy is probably to be skeptical of all of them.

That puts the burden of proof squarely on the champions of non-accredited schools. They have to stop whining because their schools aren't automatically embraced, sight unseen. They have to get off their butts and sell their schools.

It's probably not impossible. I've tried to make a case for several state-approved schools that I'm rather fond of. Part of my reason was because I truly do like these places, and part was because I wanted to see if I could defend them without becoming shark food. The great whites have been circling, but they've left me alone so far. Maybe the trick is don't leave blood in the water.

http://forums.degreeinfo.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=8582

 

I think that one of the reasons that Bill has not "become shark food" is that the schools that he likes and/or defends tend to be schools that are: (a) seeking some sort of legitimate accreditation, (b) truly don't need RA accreditation (i.e. National Test Pilot's School), or (c) very small and/or specialialized, but still run legitimate programs.

But legitimacy is not the point, kf5k. From what I can tell, you attended an unaccredited, "less demanding" (your own words) school, and then, based on your experience, you come here and disparage distance education in general as being less dificult, less interactive, and providing less new learning. You also disparaged people who seek distance ed because it is less demanding. You have got to be kidding me. Of course most programs in most unaccredited schools are going to be less demanding than equivalent programs in RA schools. They will provide less (if any) new learning. And they will provide less (if any) interaction between and among the students and teacher.

I just don't understand why you think that your experience at Chadwick "University" is even remotely related to the experience of students any RA distance ed program.

 

The weird and fascinating thing about this place is that many seem to be stuck on the degree itself as the ultimate objective. As a measure of self worth I guess, if not just a touch of superiority over those perceived to be "not so well endowed" ...it's always about size... And yet, there are lots of educated derelicts out there. I can see vociferousness in order to pursuade others from making really bad mistakes in educational choices but exchanges over post facto graduations from lesser well known or small fry schools seems more for spiteful fun than public good.

 

If EVERY employer would forget any requirements about having "earned" a degree and do an extremely in-depth interview and subject each and EVERY applicant (Ph.D or high school drop out) to an extremely thorough, rigourous and controlled series of exams and personality tests, in order to make an accurate assesment of that candidate's knowledge, abilities, and propencity to function in a given field, then, perhaps, accrediation would be unnecessary.

Otherwise, accreditation does serve a purpose. It sets minimum standards. If a school like Chadwick truly meets accrdiation standards, why doesn't it apply?

 

Personally, I wish the whole regional and national accreditation and state approval thing was rethought and abolished due to confusion. Take everybody off the list. Then install a single standard for U.S. universities at the Federal level, if you pass you're good and if you don't you're crap.

 

Once it's determined which schools are the players, use certifications to determine the level of skill and knowledge one possesses. The problem today is that at face value it is virtually impossible to tell if the graduate really learned anything regardless of whether they came from Harvard or Bendova U.