How Japan Views Non-Traditional Education, including Union & CCU

I just posted this on another site but thought it would be interesting here as well. I apologize if it has been discussed before, but the search engine here isn't working properly.

I found this piece written in the Japan Association of Language Teachers (JALT). I think it presents a very balanced and reasonable view for teachers and professionals concerning non-traditional education, both accredited and non-accredited.

Even has a few words about Union and CCU. For example, I wasn't aware that Union was unaccredited for apparently a long time. And Union's student-designed PhD programs have been looked upon rather negatively by educators and perhaps industry even when this article was written on Dec 25, 1997. I find this very enlightening. Based on this kind of information, I would have to agree with both Rich and Steve in not recommending Union for doctoral studies especially since they are still having problems with their doctoral programs.

http://jalt-publications.org/tlt/files/97/mar/shishinToombs.html

I post this not to inflame but for informational purposes only.

 

To clarify, last time I checked, JALT had many more members that were native speakers of English and non-Japanese than the converse. At that time, it was more of an ex-pat organization (although there were certainly Japanese members).



Tom Nixon

 

Here's an actual quote from the article:

For many years, schools like the Union Institute were unaccredited or pre-accredited because accreditors were wary of PhD programs where students and not the institution were the primary program designers.

Nothing wrong there, and actually pointed at the accreditors.

Union was granted candidacy two years after it opened. It lost candidacy when it ran into financial problems. Candidacy was promptly returned, and Union was accredited in 1985. While their candidacy was an extremely long one (again, due to finances), they were unaccredited (as the term is commonly used--meaning they weren't yet a candidate) for a brief time.

I read the article. There wasn't a single negative thing about Union in it, and certainly nothing to base your hypothetical "conclusion" on.

I see where it calls three unaccredited schools (Greenwich, Columbia Pacific, and CCU) "good."

There are many good nontraditional universities like Greenwich, Columbia Pacific, or California Coast which are unaccredited not because they have low academic standards but chiefly because they offer completely non-residential doctorates.



Interesting. CPU was about to lose its approval to operate and Greenwich eventually closed. CCU was in that category? Say it isn't so!

(It isn't, but relying on information 8 years old to make contemporary decisions, as suggested, would be silly.)

As for Union, there isn't anything in the article to suggest one should not enroll. Again, one should consult more contemporary sources to draw such a conclusion. That's why Steve and I have taken the stance (independently, but based on the current situation) we have. That may change soon, however.

 

I particularly like what the article says about accreditation of schools.

"all schools were unaccredited at one time..."

A direct quote from Bears' Guide.

RXI

 

But, technically, inaccurate. Some schools start off under the auspices of other, accredited schools.

On another note, this kind of statement is often used by students/graduates of unaccredited schools to support their choice in schools. And while I agree with it philosophically, there are limits. New schools can be rationalized this way, especially if there is some reason to believe they are sincere and earnest efforts. (Like Capella, which was clearly on its way from the very beginning.) Unfortunately, some people who attend and/or graduate from schools that have gone years (or decades, even) without being accredited make the same point. A few, like CCU and Southwest, have been able to use DETC to get accredited after years of operation. But not with the RA's.

During the 1980's several DL schools that had operated for years without accreditation finally made it. Walden and Sarasota, for example. But how many long-standing DL schools, operating without any form of recognized accreditation, have been accredited by an RA? None?

I don't know what the statute of limitations should be on this. Five years? Seven? But every new RA DL school lately has risen to RA quickly. Jones International, Northcentral, Capella, even APUS (to candidacy). DETC seems to be the last refuge for the CCU's of the world. As Levicoff noted, that doesn't seem to reflect well on DETC.

 

Mr. Douglas you defend Union so vehemently, but look down on other forms for people to achieve their education. If this was CCU it would be just another way for you to look down on somebody else's decision on where to get an education. But since it's about Union I'm sure you will find some way to defend it.

http://www.bizjournals.com/cincinnati/stories/2004/02/23/story1.html?page=1

also since CCU just got ther accreditation it isn't on notice unlike guess who.
Union Institute & University OH Accredited (On Notice)
directly from the NCA website.

 

And Rich has talked about this at length. If the search engine was actually working, you would be able to find this out for yourself. Rich has been a critic of the present circumstances of Union.



Tom Nixon

 

Quite true. However, legitimate and reputable schools go on to candidacy rather quickly.


Tom Nixon

 

Rich,

Jones International, Northcentral, Capella, and APUS, are located in North Central Association's area of responsibility, as are Walden and Argosy.

The North Central assocation appears to be more willing to work with non-traditional universities than the other regional accrediting agencies. Any ideas why?

 

Please describe where I've "defended" Union. I have been a pointed critic of Union for years. I was merely pointing out that Rod insinuated something in that article that didn't exist in the article, and the incorrect characterization of the period Union supposedly spent unaccredited.

You've posted here 7 times. You've been a member since....this month. Obviously, you have no clue as to what I've said or not said regarding Union over the past decade. Get a grip.

By the way, the article you linked to is a year old now. Many things have changed during that time. And we all know about Union being on notice. Not good, but certainly not the death penalty. We'll all be interested in the outcome of Union's efforts to realign their programs and administration. Whether they survive or not is still an open question (but it looks a lot better than it did a year or two ago).

Dr. Levicoff and I have posted extensively regarding these matters. Where have you been?

 

Charles:

None, really. But is an easily observable event, eh?

Perhaps its because the NCA's jurisdiction was home to some innovative schools (like Antioch) that were already accredited, and things grew from there. That region also sprung UECU and UWW. It would seem the NCA has just had a longer history of working with nontraditional programs and, later, free-standing schools.

Another factor might be the NCA's approach to measuring outcomes instead of inputs. This recent initiative might be reflectivee of the NCA's willingness to look at the final product and not the traditional input factors (like facilities, libraries, and so forth).

I believe the NCA's concerted effort to accredit DL schools has an effect on the other 5 regionals, all of whom have shown some willingness to accredit DL schools:

Northwest: Prometheus
WASC: Fielding, Saybrook
Middle States: Beacon, Excelsior, Touro International
New England: Burlington, Goddard, COSC, Vermont C.
SACS: Sarasota

Additionally, there are many B&M schools that also offer DL programs, obviously with the blessing of their respective RA's. Still, it does seem that the NCA leads the pack. But, again, I suspect it is because their member schools led the way.

 

This appears to be the same sort of misinformation that is hashed over ad nauseum in other discussion boards. I'm also lost as to how finding fault with a RA school is supposed to improve the reputation of CCU?

 

Here's the exact wording of the NCA's public disclosure statement regarding Union being on notice. Take note of the fact that the review was requested by Union. Also note that Union's accreditation isn't in danger unless, of course, Union doesn't respond to the report (no kidding). The next step would be probation, which the NCA hasn't taken.

The NCA has recommended some changes. (Who hasn't? I recommended several and submitted them to Union's president, not that it will do any good.)

The concerns listed below mirror the ones found by the Ohio Board of Regents. Union will have to limit its programs to the social sciences and humanities, and then apply to NCA for approval in other areas.

The 1970's are over. Most of us got that. Union didn't. We'll see if the school is nimble enough to make the necessary changes.

PUBLIC DISCLOSURE NOTICE

Union Institute and University, Cincinnati, OH

Effective November 1, 2004

Union Institute and University is accredited by the Higher Learning Commission of the North Central Association of Colleges and Schools. It is placed On Notice with a required report due the Commission on December 31, 2005. Union’s next comprehensive visit is scheduled for 2009-10.

The institution’s most recent review took place June 7-8, 2004 with a focused visit to Cincinnati by a Commission team that was joined by representatives of the Ohio Board of Regents and the Vermont Department of Education. This review was requested by the institution and was focused on four aspects of change in the doctoral program: curriculum, faculty staffing, student services and records, and financial impact. The team was charged with evaluating these aspects of the doctoral program in light of Commission policies related to institutional change, as well as complaints and expressions of concern raised by a wide variety of constituents, internal and external to the University.

On the basis of its review, the team recommended that the Commission place the institution on notice with the On Notice report due December 31, 2005. The areas of the doctoral program that were identified as warranting the On Notice recommendation were curriculum, student services and records, and financial impact. The team also recommended that (1) the Ph.D. program be limited to the research areas of social sciences and humanities; (2) a contingency report be filed within 30 days of the receipt of the next on-site review report of the Ohio Board of Regents; and (3) a focused visit be conducted in 2006-07 to review progress in the areas identified above as warranting the On Notice recommendation.

The Review Committee hearing was held in Chicago on September 27, 2004. The Review Committee supported the team’s recommendation, including the limitation on the Ph.D. program, the contingency report, and the focused visit. The Review Committee noted its understanding of the recommended limitation on the Ph.D. program would necessitate application to the Commission for further degree-granting authority for any practice-oriented degrees. In keeping with Commission policy, the Review Committee’s recommendation was forwarded to the Commission’s Board of Trustees.

At its meeting of October 29, 2004, the Board voted to accept the Review Committee’s recommendation. In taking this action, the Board concurred with the Review Committee’s finding that continuation of Union’s current course in the doctoral program could place the institution in jeopardy of no longer meeting accreditation standards: adequate resources to accomplish its purposes (concerns with student services and records and with financial impact), accomplishment of educational purposes (concerns with the curriculum), and continued capacity to accomplish purposes (concerns with financial impact). The Board may move an institution to probation if the institution’s response and actions, as reflected in its On Notice Report, are judged to be insufficient.

This Public Disclosure Statement was prepared by the Commission and reviewed by the Union Institute and University.

 

Rich,

Was Sarasota accredited by SACS before it became accredited by NCA and changed its name to Argosy?

Is Prometheus a degree granting institution?

 

Union's troubles should in no way reflect on the individual student, who by requirement follows the program as it is approved and prescribed at the time.

 

I think Union was criticized unjustly mostly because of politics, and because they were ahead of their time.

Some one like me who is not biased and open minded can say that Union was and still deferent in their approach and at the time it was very fresh.

Non traditional universities had to overcome many obstacles.

Those that opposed this kind of changes in the past are moving toward implementing them in the present or near future.

The funny part is that they will go long way to scrutinize a legitimate school and some mill will go and generate money anther the same name as real university for decades and they won't lift a finger.

This is all competition, business and politics and has very little to do with quality of education.

Learner

 

I'm not arguing with Learner, but I have a different take. (I'd love to adopt Learner's, but I'm not sure it's defensible.)

Union had already overcome the politics. It had been licensed by the OBR for decades. It had been granted candidacy by NCA very quickly, lost it, then re-gained it. Eventually, NCA accredited Union, and does so to this day. I'm not sure politics is the issue, at least not at the NCA.

I do believe politics and traditionalism have played a role with the OBR, dominated by The Ohio State University. But their criticisms are very much merited. It's as if Union let them in the door, so now they (OBR) are going to tear things up. If Union had taken a proactive stance in engaging the OBR, this might have been avoided. (Modifications, sure, but not wholesale and immediate changes.)

I'm pretty sure that, for years, Union was anything BUT deferential to the powers that be. I believe that under previous Union administrations, the school was rather arrogant. Roger Sublett, the current president, seems to be bending over backwards to make up for that.

 

soaring porkers time

Notice the vast difference, crabby tourists:

Union graduates on this forum are quite prepared to criticize their school and to reproduce documents about their school which are not 100% puff pieces.

Let's see CCU grads show this level of maturity and objectivity.

Not to mention Knightsbridge...


P.S. I respect its grads, but I'm no particular fan of Union. Never have been.

 

This is a very charitable statement, but I bet Dr. Levicoff and I would respectfully disagree.

The whole idea behind Union is learner-centered graduate education. The learner controls, to a large extent, the content of the degree program. Sure, Union is tasked to ensure program rigor, but I've seen many learners go way above and beyond stated requirements in order to do the degree program they desired. Any Union leaner can do this.

A doctoral graduate of Union should be able able to have his/her degree stand on its own. I'm proud of the work I did, and am confident it compares well with work from graduates of traditional schools.