Idaho Dept. of Ed recommends Sheila Danzig for foreign credential evaluations

You have just got to love that kind of stuff.
Thanks for the blast from the past.
Jack

 

Welcome aboard (which is all I said to Mr Potter) is neither useful nor useless. It is a polite salutation.

I hasten to add that I heartily concur with what Ursus Major and DesElms posted in regard to the chronic oversight mess in Idaho. Let us also not forget that the crooks targeted in the Spokane Raid were belatedly trying to shuffle across the border--and not to B.C or Oregon, in case any one should be geographically or ethically confused.

 

Where they would, if Idaho's current state of oversight -- or, to be more accurate, lack thereof -- is any indication, be welcome.

• *The words "[into Idaho]" were added by me since that's what Janko meant anyway (and I knew he wouldn't mind as long as I did the the way I did it) so that my words of reply would follow more smoothly.

I hopetogod Mr. Potter is both reading all this, and is appalled. I hope, further, that he goes straight to his boss and his boss's boss and whomever else can begin to finally do something about the Idaho problem; and I hope he shows this thread to them and brings them up to speed on the whole St. Regis thing, and now the Danzig thing and the Canyon College thing (if they're not already); and I hope that the lot of them will subsequently realize that someone did notice and that it's time to do their jobs and rid that state of is mills.

But I won't hold my breath.

 

Good Morning everybody.

Yes, we are very aware of Canyon College and Breyer State, but the powers to be, make that legislature, are not willing to close the loop holes in our laws to block the diploma mills.

I was making inquires about both colleges since they are very much interwoven and received letters from an attorney, former attorney general, to stop what I was doing or else. My boss also received a copy of that letter and I was told that it wasn't my job to do what I was doing. So I stopped.

We are a very small department because we are a small state in population. I wear many hats and doing evaluations are one of them. That is why we have a list of companies who do foreign evaluation, because we don't have the expertise.

We have talked about limiting or picking a select few companies to work with Idaho to do the foreign evaluations. We just haven't done it yet.

If you visit our website you will see that we list a number of companies and organizations concerning foreign evaluations, but we also make it clear we don't recommend one company over another. I have all the information each company sends, but a slick brochure doesn't make it valid.

I welcome any suggestions on which companies and organizations are trustworthy and we should use. Please feel free to e-mail me or call me.

I am pretty far down the food chain to make recommendations and be heard, but I will be bring it up again. Believe me, our Bureau does not like or want Idaho to be a haven for frauds and fakes.

Thanks for the feed back.

 

Thank you, Keith, for the explanation of your position. I wish you the best. I'm taking the liberty of repeating your contact information from your earlier post so that it's more closely located to your most recent post.
_______________________________________
Keith Potter posted this earlier:

Please contact me at 208-332-6887 or e-mail [email protected]

 

So, that's it? End of story? Case closed?

The Idaho State Legislature REFUSES (that is, in your won words, is NOT willing) to rid the state of diploma mills? Now, or are we just speaking of the past (which, to me, is no definitive predictor of what/how/when any legislature) can or will act in any given situation)?.

... And, even if it was a given, that the members of the Idaho State Legislature ARE NOT WILLING, today, now, to close loopholes to block the nefarious operation of said diploma mills, is the same true of all branches of Idaho State Government? That is, the legislature, the Executive, and the Judiciary all WILL NOT do a damn thing to rid the good state of Idaho from the cancerous infestations of diploma mills and un-wonderful schools?


.... And if so, if all the three branches of Idaho's State Government will not so act, is it then entirely out of the realm of all reasonable possibility for one of more agencies, units, branches of THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT to then do something (that the state will not do)?

Federal agents and agencies have acted very recently, and have been known to be not-too-shy to act, if the facts and circumstances, documentable and willful local/State neglect, and egregiousness of the situation, can be shown to exist.

I am speaking of course of the very recent, wonderfully grand and long-overdue action by some agents of our federal government (Secret Service or IRS or FBI or whomever else was involved) in the raiding, seizure, and confiscation of documents, computers, financial records, computers, emails, letters, etc. relating to the ongoing investigation of some unsavory online "schools," outright scams and scammers, the delightful-to-read proceedings of which have been posted here on DI boards for all to see, read, and relish?

Blimey!

It does not look good at all to openly throw in the towel in the first round of a 12-round bout with known scammers and diploma mills in your state (or any state, for that matter)!

Hello, Idaho State Government?

What will it take, Mr. Potter?

Anyone?

Ah, yes, so Idaho houses an entity which is known for the dictum and practice of "six courses for a Bachelors or Masters or Doctoral degree!"

Why am I not surprised!

Idaho thus shares at least one characteristic in common with another known, unwonderful entity (and with many others, elsewhere): Wyoming's KW"U" also does same! In fact, Bachelors/Masters/Doctotral degrees can be awarded by this entity for FOUR courses (plus a final paper!)

Question:

How many Idaho (and Wyoming) State Government employees and/or leaders "obtained" their "degrees" from Canyon "U" or KW"U"?

Interesting question, isn't it? The answer may or may not explain a thing or two.

The good people of the wonderful states of Idaho and Wyoming deserve better from their authorities and publicly-paid education and consumer affairs overseers!

Feds, are you taking note?

I certainly hope so.

Thanks.

 

I'm so sorry, Steve. Those were things that Mr. Potter said... er... wrote. It has to do with how I build a reply that replies to multiple people, and me being tired and distracted and not careful about making sure that I change the names in the "Originally posted by..." part after I copy and paste from an earlier occurrence of same. My bad. I truly apologize.

 

Whenever I've worked for an employer with no integrity, once said lack of integrity became known to me, I quit. I'm not saying that you should... I mean everyone needs a job; and if you're doing other stuff that helps the citizenry more than your not being able to stop the mills hurts it, then it's clearly better that you stay. My blistering criticism, earlier, was not meant to suggest so much that you were/are the problem as it was that your state (and whatever departments within it that are supposed to protect the citizenry against mills) were/are.

Okay... on this we can be of some help. It's very simple, really. All you have to do is limit the foreign credential evaluators with whom you work to AACRAO's foreign credential evaluation service; or, pretty much any NACES member agency. Period.

These (AACRAO and any NACES member agency) are known to be completely legitimate, and are the ones routinely used by most governmental agencies, most accredited colleges/universities, and probably most private employers who use foreign credential evaluation services at all.

AACRAO and its service is/are first rate; and most NACES member agencies are easily on par with, or may even exceed, AACRAO's overall quality... with only a few near-stinkers in the bunch. And even NACES's "stinkers" (if there even are any) are still quite credible because NACES's standards are quite credible. The state of Oregon's Office of Degree Authorization uses AACRAO almost exclusively, as I recall... though its Director, Alan Contreras, has also, more recently around here, extolled the virtues of NACES member agencies... so his office may well now be using some of them, too. Only he can say.

But the bottom line is that if Idaho would simply stick with either AACRAO or any NACES member agency, and no other, it cannot go wrong!

Just make sure that higher-ups in the food chain see this thread. They'll get the picture. Or maybe not. Again, I won't hold my breath.

As Idaho's perhaps harshest critic in this thread, and as someone who was unsympathetic to Mr. Potter's earlier post, I, for one, am impressed with this more recent one. If it is sincere -- and I have no reason to doubt that it is -- then that's a good sign. But what a shame it is that that state's legislature, and its highest regulatory personnel, don't get it.

I guess I'm starting to figure out why whenever some nutjob's trying to declare his farm a separate country, and ends-up in a shootout with the FBI, it's in Idaho. Too bad it's so pretty there. The view's obviously wasted on the clueless (and I don't necessarily mean Mr. Potter... but I do mean some of his bosses and that state's legislature).

 

doing the right thing

Having Men with Guns go into the Idaho offices of St. Regis will help Mr. Potter make his case to the folks further up the org chart.

We can help: good, concise information can work wonders. Patience is necessary, persistence is too.

He didn't know about the Breyer State - Medical College of London connection, or the Idaho - St. Luke School of Medicine link, but now he's aware of it.

Things will change, timing is important.

 

Thanks for the belly laugh, Gregg.

 

I don't understand this sentence Gregg,

First you say they have stinkers, then you even if their are any? So which is it stinkers or no stinkers, and if stinkers exist which agencies do you think are stinkers?

 

If only you knew.

 

I'm sorry for the confusion. In my opinion, no NACES member agency is a stinker in the sense that they're not legit or don't do a good job. There are, however, some NACES member agencies that are very small; that don't reply to email promptly; that are too rigid or conservative and, therefore, might not give credit where it's really due; that do things in a sort of mom-and-pop, kinda' home-spun manner. That sort of thing. Those are what I mean by stinkers.

No NACES member agencies, from what I can tell, would steer anyone wrong, or give credit where it's not due (like the Danzig debacle would, for a fee, do). I didn't mean that. I just mean that some of the NACES member agencies are larger and more experienced and more fun to work with than others; and the ones that aren't are often the ones that... well... can be almost hard to work with in that they might say "that degree of yours really isn't RA equivalent" when most other NACES member agencies would say that it is, only because the one who said it wasn't was just being too old-fashioned and conservative; and might counsel that the degree would be considered RA equivalent if you just took another few hours of coursework at an accredited institution. I ran into this when trying to help a friend get his BS in Accounting (earned almost 20 years ago) from a university in the Philippines declared equivalent to a BS in Accounting from a U.S. RA university. When dealing with the smaller, mom-and-pop type of NACES members, it was harder to get them to agree that the degree was okay than it was with some of the larger agencies that had more experience and were more familiar with the various universities in the Philippines, etc. Eventually, everyone agreed, but it just took more work with the smaller, more mom-and-pop type agencies. It was no big deal, but I came away from one of the more troublesome ones thinking to myself, "Ugh! What a stinker!"

Does that help?

 

ADDENDUM ('cause the edit timeout timed-out on my previous message before I realized that I hadn't answered all parts of your question)...

Not a chance I'm gonna' specify that in this context. The last thing I want is for any NACES member agencies to be afraid to work with me because they're afraid I'll come into a public forum and complain about them. If I ever stumble onto one that's objectively bad, or not worthy of the NACES imprimatur, or that is genuinely hurting people or institutions, then I'll come here and out 'em so fast they won't know what hit 'em! But that's not the case. There are just some NACES member agencies that are better than others. I think they will all pretty much come to the same conclusions because they're all pretty much using the same tools and critera; with just a few being anywhere from a bit more to somewhat more conservative, and maybe less experienced, than others... with concomitant results. That's all I meant. But there's nothing objectively "stinky" about any of them... other than that's how I referred to one of them after dealing with their rigidity and conservatism. But even that one I'd still recommend. It's just not at the top of my list.

 

I'm not quoting the whole thing but I will say interesting answer. I work for one of the smaller more mom and pop companies.....So I am slightly annoyed with your answer, but I am fairly certain you didn't knock my door either.

There are certain companies within the NACES that I don't care for very much, but its more a matter of their attitude than anything.

have a great Friday.

 

So, you're a professional DegreeInfo type person, great. I'm glad that you're here. (from just a happy-go-lucky amateur).

 

If I'm not talking about the one that you work for; and if your mom-and-pop shop doesn't happen to suffer from the kind of pedestrian thinking and attitude that we encountered, then I don't know why you'd be annoyed. If one of your fellow NACES members who's small, like your firm, doesn't happen to be as forward-thinking as is yours, then why would it irritate you that I'm unhappy with the other? Their work or attitude has nothing to do with yours. I'm not saying that the small, mom-and-pop NACES members aren't as good just because they're small and mom-and-pop. Or, if I did seem to suggest that, I'm awfully sorry... 'cause that's not what I meant. If so, my bad... and my apologies.

Well, we don't know that for sure because the degree, nor the correspondence wrapped around it, wasn't in my name. Remember that I was helping a friend. But, that not withstanding, I'm betting you're right... that we didn't.

So, then... wait a minute... we're saying pretty much the same thing, then... no? Even you seem to agree that there's a "stinker" or two, then... even if only for their "attitude."

I mean, we're not saying -- or at least I'm not saying -- that they're so stinky that they really shouldn't be doing what they're doing, or that anyone hiring them would be harmed or anything like that; but we seem to agree that their attitudes could use some... I dunno... maybe "modernizing" is a good word.

I don't know about you, but that's pretty much all I was saying. There are a few small NACES member agencies that maybe aren't quite as open-minded in some areas as some of the other larger ones. To me, that's all part of said agency's "attitude," no? And when an agency's attitude is... oh... let's say, not very favorable toward distance learning, for example, then that can be troublesome for... oh... let's say an American, for example, who got an MTh at SATS, but is having a bit of trouble getting the conservative NACES member agency to take it as seriously as a larger and more experienced NACES member agency that maybe has more experience with SATS and distance learning, generally; and, therefore, isn't as hesitant to give SATS its due.

Again, I'm not suggesting that the "stinky" NACES member agencies -- if there even are any that deserve that particular moniker (which, if you recall, is pretty much the way I worded it in the first place) -- are erring in the Danzig-style direction and declaring sub-standard degrees as equivalent to regionally-accredited. If I ever spotted anything like that, I'd be here outing 'em so fast it would make their heads spin. I'm saying that some of the NACES member agencies are a little too conservative and make the degree holder work to convince them that they're not seeing it the way it actually is. We (my Filipino friend and I) ran into a bit of that sort of thing with one of the very small agencies, and that's why we ended-up having to pay for a second, larger NACES member agency to employ its more inclusive, reasonable and experienced world view to declare my friend's BS in Accounting as equivalent to any similarly-titled, US regionally-accredited degree.

I mean... look... I'm sure I don't have your kind of experience, but I know what a U.S. BS in Accounting looks like. That's what my own bachelors started out being many years ago. My friend no longer had any of his syllabi, but he still had his textbooks after all these years... and some of them were exactly the same (just newer editions) as the ones I used. The ones that weren't were just as good. And I know how much general education, etc., a good U.S. BS in Accounting needs to have... and it was all there on his transcript. Some of it was labeled/titled differently, but it was all there. After all, the school he went to is one of the oldest and most prestigious in the Philippines. And, as I'm sure you know, the Philippines has had a tremendous US influence in its educational system since World War II. With the larger, older, more prestigious colleges/universities in the Philippines, there's virtually no difference in the quality of the coursework from that in the US. In fact, it's even all in English, just like what the public primary and secondary schools in the Philippines do. So I knew there was pretty much no reason for this guy's degree not to be declared as US RA equivalent without him having to take any additional RA courses here in the US.

The first, very small NACES member agency pretty much agreed, but balked and tried to make him jump through too many hoops... hence my having called it "a stinker." The second, much larger one, didn't even hesitate. The whole thing took just a few days, front to back. I think the mailing time took longer than the assessment itself. And that's because the second agency said, "Oh, yeah... we know all about that school," and the first one had to look it up.

People are people, you know? No one can know everything. Some people are better at what they do than are others... sometimes only because they're more experienced. Some are so much better at it, sometimes, that it can make the others, by comparison, look a little... well.. stinky.

That's all I was saying. I'm truly sorry that it "annoyed" you... and a little surprised, too, given that I'll bet dollars to donuts that yours is not the smaller of the two agencies that we approached. In any case, annoying you, for whatever reason, was not one of my goals here... and I apologize for that ending-up being the case.

Of course, as you probably know from reading some of my posts around here, I often end-up doing that to people anyway.

Hey... what can I say... it's a gift. Some got it, some don't.

 

Gregg,

I will respond to this in a pm, and i won't quote any of it, so remember what you wrote

 

Uh, oh. I'm in trouble, now. Am I gonna'... like... need a lawyer or something?

[kidding]

Seriously, I got your PM... and your last line, as you know from my response thereto, tickled me.

You made good points in it, though. I won't share here, however... not because you wrote anything that couldn't be, but because, for whatever reason, you wanted it private... and so I'll respect and honor that.

For the reader, suffice it to say that he didn't really talk about anything in the PM that would leave the reader of this thread feeling like s/he missed anything particularly relevant to this exchange. He did make a funny right at the end, though, that you'all might have enjoyed. But, alas...

One last thing I forgot to mention in my PM reply, though: As for the spelling thing, my girlfriend (or "significant other" or "life partner" or whatever the hell it is that we're supposed to be calling them these days) is Filipino... or, as those who use "Latina" for females (as opposed to "Latino" for males) might correct me: A Filipina. Whichever. Anyway, she says that rememberingg how to spell "Philippines," for Americans, is easy. Just remember, she said, "Phili-p-pines"... or like in, if you insist on a memory trick, a philospher pees on the pines. (Hey... I didn't make it up! I'm just the messenger.)

The occasion she had for pointing it out to me was when she was watching over my shoulder as I typed something for her once and she noticed that, at first, I spelled "Philippines" as "Phillipines" and then, before she could correct me, I backspaced and spelled it right... 'cause... well... I don't actually know why I already knew how to spell it right, but I just did... on the second try, at least. But, anyway, she noticed my initial impulse to misspell it the way I did, and so she made the comment.

"Fine," I said, "and thank you for that. But if you're so smart, then explain why someone from the Philippines is called a Filipino."

She paused... and then thumped me on the back of the head and walked away, calling me a stupid white man, in Tagalog, under her breath.

She's right, of course, but no one likes to hear it... especially in multiple languages. Of course, I shouldn't complain. When she really gets going, she calls me much worse in Ilocano, which is her first language... the language of her province. But I digress... as my signature, here, points out is one of my areas of specialization and mastery.