Has the Oregon ODA Prosecuted Anyone?

Yeah right. Dream on.

All California needs to do is release its relentless CA-approved ninjas from the California University of Protection Management into Oregon. Their black suits and shades would probably scare Oregon into submission.

http://www.vipprotection.com/wbbinfo/index.php

If that doesn't silence the rainsoaked tree-devils, we'll unleash the jets from our CA-approved NTPS airforce, and return the dripping wretches to the oblivion from which they came.

http://www.ntps.edu/Images/draken.jpg

http://www.ntps.edu/Images/implspin.jpg

 

If you have a vehicle inspection law in one state, and you drive a car there from another that does not have a inspection law will they fine you for not having a sticker?

If you have a law regarding the shade of tint on a vehicles windows, and someone drives in from a state thats law is different will that owner be fined?

I can see it now someone drives down from Seattle to do some contract work in Portland. He is pulled over by the degree police. Sir may we see your diploma. Sir your diploma is not registered here as legal, and we will have confiscate it. You will have to come with us you are under arrest. Later, at the police auction the degree is sold for $25.50 to the highest bidder.

 

What's your point plscott? The things that you describe goes on every day. At the US-Mexico border, there are inspectors that inspect the Mexican trucks before they can cross the border because the Mexican vehicle inspection laws are not up to USA standards.

 

I've always thought that education related laws in this country should be rewritten to say "accredited or approved". I also think that U.S. State Approval should be given the same consideration by US DOE as Foreign State Approval.

 

I forgot to mention that if anyone needs any shooting sports equipment they should visit www.hayesandassociates.co.nz and place their orders.

 

Or you could just outlaw accreditation?

 

yep, we've spent some ink on that one. However, not "outlaw" because it's a bad system, just dump it in favor of the more internationally understood system of governmental approval. However, that's unlikely so hence the above post.

 

I'm in the market for a fine condition West Hurley Thompson submachine gun, anything in stock? ...fully accredited full auto

(semi auto is getting a little boring...)

 

Where do I bid for the Liberian accrediting franchise? You mean it has already been taken?

 

I think the point that many miss is the U.S. accreditation system is perhaps one of the best. It allows a diversity that few countries can match. The worst feature is that few people take the time to understand it and some end up with substandard degrees because of that.

 

I agree.

I like the fact that:

A. Different alternative accreditors can coexist. There may be legitimate disagreements about what a good education should be, and multiple accreditors allow schools with different visions to follow different paths.

B. Standards are designed and enforced not by government bureaucrats but by the academic and professional communities themselves. The American Chemical Society accredits chemistry departments, and who knows more about chemistry than the chemists? The regional accreditors are associations whose membership are the universities themselves.

That problem can easily be avoided by taking an 'RA-or-nothing' approach. Doing that gives you one, simple, easy, monolithic standard.

Strangely, the critics of 'RA-or-nothing' are precisely the individuals that argue for government control.

Centralized federal control would be an ironic choice. If people react angrily to the suggestion that they voluntarily reject everything but RA, turning around and demanding that the federal government step in to enforce a single standard doesn't make much sense.

So the anti-RA proponents of government control really seem to be arguing for fifty different state government controls, in other words for making state-approval the national standard(s).

That would certainly allow plenty of space for multiple standards, but it would also be hopelessly confusing. What's more, unless some states dramatically improved their oversight, it would make the world safe for some very questionable schools.

 

When ODA put MIGS on its list, I was against it. At the time, it appeared MIGS had an agreement with the CEU, and that the CEU would issue degrees. Then they took MIGS off the list, then put them back on. Even the current note on their website is not helpful; MIGS wasn't going to issue degrees, the CEU was. Anyway, I felt this was a haphazard and incomplete effort, at best.

I've sort of revised that opinion. First, Alan's efforts to confirm the MIGS/CEU situation--and the CEU's non-response--taught us a lot. It performed a positive service. Second, "the list" (properly and more completely managed) serves as a lightning rod. It has the potential of getting know and cited in other sources. This is a good thing. Third, I am growing more and more skeptical that schools that remain unaccredited should be allowed to operate. I like some of the California-approved residential programs, and have confessed a soft place in my heart for California Pacific--even if their owner was snippy to me. But losing them would be a small price to pay for getting rid of the ridiculous schools that operate with California Approval. Anyway, the ODA's list provides a public service. And the illegality of those degrees in Oregon--even if no prosecutions ever occur--is something useful to this field in general.

 

More useful to this field would be some nice grass, but instead I would settle for keeping the approval process, and CCU, my pet rock. I'm sure others have their own pet schools. Why not just let them stay, and allow people to make their own choices.

 

People are "allowed to make their own choices." Certainly you aren't suggesting that anyone is prohibited from enrolling in any particular school by comments posted here?

However, if some people care to make comments on this board about schools--accredited or otherwise--then expect others to respond, even about someone's "pet school." Sorry, but if you get to post it, I get to respond.

 

I hate to do this awful thing and actually post about the thread, but this came from the article in the Denver Post.



"Oregon hasn't prosecuted anyone yet, sending only cease-and-desist letters to 40 people, said Alan Conteras, administrator of Oregon's Office of Degree Authorization.

If those people do not stop using the degree, they may face up to a $1,000 fine and one year in jail. Those who operate such diploma mills in the state face a $75,000 fine."



I suppose that answers the question. Interesting use of the word, "yet."



Tom Nixon

 

I also get to respond to negative comments about approved schools when facts are exaggerated to make a point as is often done, especially about the use of an approved degree. I get to respond when views opposed to( RA only ) are expressed, and then these folks get misquoted, called idiots, apologists for degree mills, when approved schools are said to be the same as Trinity University. Indeed several people use very personal attacks to try and ridicule the view that approved has value, and is an option. No one on this forum can stop anyone from getting or using an approved degree, but they can do their best, or worst, to prevent any positive statement. This is done by group attacks, personal attack, deliberate misquotes, and repeating incorrect statements. If it ain't RA it's not of value, or so they say, and I disagree. Millions have, and use approved diplomas all the time. The approved schools have usage and value, as do their students, and I will continue to say so, despite being called-idiot-liar-fool-apologist for degree mills-moron, and other colorful phrases. A half dozen regulars use this attack method regularly, and it is indeed used to try and force people to be RA correct. I will continue to point out this attack method. I do not get on here and call people idiots, fools, and the like, and I intend to point this out when others do it, and everyone can get just as touchy as they wish, when I point out that these personal attacks are going too far.

 

"Shocked! I'm shocked to find gambling going on here!"

Seriously, I had no idea the ODA was actually acting. Cool.

 

I really don't know of anyone that has taken that position. If you're going to set up a straw horse just so you can knock it down fine, otherwise please try to stick to the facts.

My position is that unaccredited degrees are generally of limited utility. An unaccredited degree is typically a time bomb waiting to happen. Your time bomb might have gone off when you (generic you, not kf5k) didn't get that job you wanted or it could go off when your current employer decides to start checking degrees. The evidence supports that position. I believe that the utility one can generally get out of most unaccredited degrees is comparable to a bald face lie where one claims a degree from a school that was never attended. (Probably the most common academic fraud.)

Some other practical negatives about unaccredited degrees. If/when the place closes down then there's no record available that one graduated from the institution and unaccredited institutions close down very frequently. The general public when made aware of accreditation will usually assume that an unaccredited degree equals a degree mill.

 

"Oregon hasn't prosecuted anyone yet, sending only cease-and-desist letters to 40 people, said Alan Conteras, administrator of Oregon's Office of Degree Authorization.

If those people do not stop using the degree, they may face up to a $1,000 fine and one year in jail. Those who operate such diploma mills in the state face a $75,000 fine."



I suppose that answers the question. Interesting use of the word, "yet."



Tom Nixon


__________________

Even more interesting is the use of the word, "may".

 

Dr. Dean Darris does not appear to be concerned. I wonder if he may have been one of the forty?