If Laura Callahan's Ph.D. had been from...?

This entire thread is a clear example of my home state's disservice to the distance learning community. By approving schools which do not meet regionally accredited standards, California has added to an already confusing situation.

Employers are being faced with a number of accrediting agencies, state approvals, and plain old degree mills. Keep in mind that most of the public does not read Bears' Guide, or spend hours on this forum debating the relevance of accreditation. They do, however, watch short reports on degree mills on TV newsmagazines. It can be very easy for the public to equate the degree mills with legitimate distance learning schools.

The Callahan case involved an obvious degree mill. But with people, such as RJT, promoting schools like KW: and the various states approving like schools, I worry that the public perception is being clouded.

If RJT had his way, college degrees would lose all relevancy. Each school would simply devise its own minimum standards, and students would choose the program they could complete, meaning that anyone could complete a degree.

As a matter of fact, why don't we just save time and award degrees to everyone.

 

For real? What's wrong with the majority of the populace?

 

Plumbdog:

Your way my way ... what difference does it make??

The bottom-line is that the States determine what is and what is not a legally operating and a regulated school within a state's boarders. KW, Century, CalCoast, SCUPS, Pacific Western meet this criterion, and are properly licensed to meet the state regulations of the state in which they gain their approval granting authority. These schools have just as much a right to exist, according to the US DoE Website, as an accredited school. I do not feel that accreditation should be forced upon a school to legally operate, or be valid.

The problem comes in when a school that totally skirts any regulation infiltrates mainstream employers, like the US Gov't.

I feel the matter could be solved if all states got together and developed unilateral by-laws for what are legally operating, but unaccredited options within the states. The by-laws could be less strict than OR, but more conservative than South Dakota, MT, WY, etc. In that way all could agree.

Also, in that way a student could choose three US based legally valid educational options:

RA/NA
50 States Approved
Unaccredited for Religious purposes (Theological Degrees Only)

Let's call Senator Kennedy and do it ... We can always opt to ask for changing the constitution. You make the call.

 

RJT

I prefer a system similar to the one California uses. They make room for many different people at their dinner table. Approved schools and RA schools exist together, providing many different choices, but choices that should exclude the degree mills.

 

I guess this rant is somewhat related to the thread...

State Approval against unified standards or Federal Approval SHOULD be the way US schools are certified and "accredited". Even though we live with this accreditation system today, we should dump this accreditor nonsense and the infrastructure that supports it. Dump the regionals, nationals, professionals... all of them... and their faithful defenders. That system is a mess. It has been bastardized since the 20's to the convoluted organism we have today. In my mind it compares to the way the income tax system morphed into the mess it is. Our accreditation system continues to foster business protection for those on the "gold standard" on one hand and the propensity for outright fraud and confusion on the other. I think there are better ways to ensure quality than what we've got today. Let's make this thing simple. Either the school is approved against one single standard or it is not. .... oh well, back to RA, NA, SA, PA, UnA....

 

As soon as all of the RA authorities get their act together and are willing to give distance ed schools a fair shake, I think this might be possible. Of course, it is not possible for brand new schools to meet RA standards before they begin operating, so you would have to have some sort of grace period in which schools could operate without being accredited. Other than that, I would agree with a standard that says that the only way that you can have degree granting authority is to be RA. Schools like the National Test Pilots School (or any other school, really) would still be able to operate within a state's parameters even if they do not wish to seek RA accreditation, they just would not be able to grant degrees. And given this scenario, I don't see any merit in having government take over the role of the RA accreditors.

As for professional accreditations, this is ridiculous. What you are saying is that it should be illegal for schools to get together and say that we, as a group of schools, meet certain standards. How in the world could you ever pass legislation against this?

But if you are seeking some kind of national standard akin to Wyoming state approval, I assure that will never happen. Thank God.

 

It could be an interesting fight ...either RA takes over with broad powers excluding all other degrees ...or its thrown out along with all the other accreditors in favor of a governmental approval system of quality assurance. I like the latter because it is consistent with the global economy (it's ludicrous to suggest that I am in favor of the WY model).

 

Fair enough. Why do you think that a bureaucratic government agency would do a better job than the RA accreditors?

As far as being consistent with the global economy, I would think that a government bureaucracy would be antithetical. In an efficient global economy, the marketplace, not the government, should determine the standards. That's exactly what the RA system is. The institutions that participate in the system determine the quality standards. They are, in effect, saying that "yes, there are other institutions with the authority to grant degrees, but if you want to know that the degree is legitimate without doing extensive research on the thousands of degree granting institutions, then we will provide that standard." I don't believe that there is any official statement from an RA body stating that state-approved degrees are illegitimate. They simply say that those schools have not met their standards.

 

Back to the thread... If she had graduated from any school that operates under government supervision (international, national, or state), I think she would have been ok. Article IV US Const. comes into play here "Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State." (The accredited/unaccredited argument makes good press based on the sensational value of the story... in this case, her organizational position in a highly visible department with what appears to be fraudulent credentials.) But that doesn't trump the Constitution.

She may still get away with it though since the "school" is operating legally under a government exemption.

 

If you people want a one-size-fits-all system, just ignore anything except RA. Simple, problem solved.

As for myself, I like a system in which people can experiment with different ways of doing things. (If there were no experiments, there would be no DL.) Do we really need all the general ed that the RAs insist upon? Why not reduce it like Expression Center? Or perhaps what we need is an education built around general ed, like the AALE or Campion want. Does engineering need hands-on labs, and if so how many and handled how? DETC and ABET aren't gonna agree. Must doctoral programs have a residential component? Can Americans have "research" doctorates, or are those only appropriate for foreigners? How should DL-only schools be handled? What about distance law study? Must schools have a critical institutional mass as WASC demands, or can they be little things with one program, run out of a house, as the BPPVE approves? Do universities really need all those administrative committees and procedures that the regionals insist that candidates so anally document? Or can small special purpose institutes cut back on that bureaucratic crap and fly (literally) seat-of-the-pants like NTPS?

I think that the strength of the United States, the thing that constitutes its peculiar brilliance, is the fact that people have an unprecedented ability to do what they want. But that means that we have the associated responsibility of sorting out the resulting alternatives and making some choices.

If that responsibility is too much for us, then we can simply ignore it by always choosing RA and rejecting everything else. It's easy, it's safe and it's simple. But if we want some more wide ranging and often more controversial alternatives, we have them readily available as well. People can experiment. People can deviate.

The argument is raised that this is too hard for people to understand. But to make it go away, all people have to do is think: Regional Accreditation. There! Now things are suddenly all easy again.

The complexity only exists if you want it to.

The problem isn't the system. It's you.

We already have a monolithic system if people want to embrace it. But those who do are denounced as intolerant Nazis and sharks. So apparently the answer to our rejecting non-RA alternatives is simply to do away with non-RA alternatives by government fiat. That way nobody will reject them because they won't exist. It will remove the temptation, it will remove the controversy and it will remove the need to make a choice. How that improves matters is a complete mystery, but there it is.

Think about it: You people are supposed to be university students and faculty. If you can't figure this out, then there's no hope for you at all, is there?

 

This defines the problem... the system is currently "captured" by the industry that should be regulated.

The government is in a better position to effectively enforce public policy based on a single standard than is an association.

 

I like the experimental learning thing and the freedom concept, but there is so much fraud and confusion now not to rethink the existing degree-granting system.

RA is just more of the same... and when that system continues then along come the other accreditors who further muck up the concept.

Nup, I say dump them all... and let's get down to what constitutes a legal, ethical, quality education through a single minimal standard. We already hold the US DOE as some kind of a deity, so lets let them live up to it.

 

This sums it up.

 

The fact of the matter is that our bona fide higher general education system already essentially is RA. The other options are relatively small players.

The problem is that there are too many fraudulent enterprises out there. I'm beginning to feel that Oregon and New Jersey have the right idea. Pass laws against the use of fraudulent degrees. The WWW is making it too difficult to track down the con artists. I mean it would still be nice if the few weak link states (like Wyoming) were to tighten up their degree mill laws. Even after they do though, there will be the international scams.

 

The British have a system close to what you seem to be describing. That seems to have its problems as well. Last time I checked out the British DfEE Higher Education website a few years ago they seemed to be trying to figure out how to get the British universitys to police themselves in the same manner that RA does it here. The conclusion was that the professional educators should be able to do a better job at this than government workers.

Like I mentioned before, my view is that we already have a single minimal standard in RA. I would be surprised if DETC constituted even a percent of the college graduates in this country and the bona fide general education schools that aren't accredited is probably smaller than that. I must note that these figures are just guesses on my part.

 

Why not just have a single national accreditor instead of the 6 regionals. At least there would be one voice instead of 6. Let the DETC be the national voice of the approved schools. This would, I believe, elevate the bottom level, while allowing some measure of new experimentation. As for the rest of the accreditors, I guess they do what they want, as they do now. I would like to see the bottom requirements lifted for approved schools, and the RA system more uniform across the country.

 

BillDayson: "If you people want a one-size-fits-all system, just ignore anything except RA. Simple, problem solved.

As for myself, I like a system in which people can experiment with different ways of doing things. (If there were no experiments, there would be no DL.) Do we really need all the general ed that the RAs insist upon? Why not reduce it like Expression Center? Or perhaps what we need is an education built around general ed, like the AALE or Campion want. Does engineering need hands-on labs, and if so how many and handled how? DETC and ABET aren't gonna agree. Must doctoral programs have a residential component? Can Americans have "research" doctorates, or are those only appropriate for foreigners? How should DL-only schools be handled? What about distance law study? Must schools have a critical institutional mass as WASC demands, or can they be little things with one program, run out of a house, as the BPPVE approves? Do universities really need all those administrative committees and procedures that the regionals insist that candidates so anally document? Or can small special purpose institutes cut back on that bureaucratic crap and fly (literally) seat-of-the-pants like NTPS?

I think that the strength of the United States, the thing that constitutes its peculiar brilliance, is the fact that people have an unprecedented ability to do what they want. But that means that we have the associated responsibility of sorting out the resulting alternatives and making some choices........


Cehi: Well summarized. I agree. Thank you. However, I think it make more sense to have one accreditor than the numerous accreditors that we have now.


BillDayson: "So apparently the answer to our rejecting non-RA alternatives is simply to do away with non-RA alternatives by government fiat. That way nobody will reject them because they won't exist. "

Cehi: While your comments are sensible, the opposite could very well be argued by accepting non-Ra alternative(s) whereby the federal government assume the responsibility for setting the minimum standards for degree-granting authority for colleges. In this case, there would not be nemerous accreditors nor state approvals, licenses, etc. (they would all be rejected). States would still maintain their power to approve schools, etc. But, those schools would only issue certificates. I always believe that there is always the best way to do something that can be done in many good ways. The question is what can we agree as the best way or method. Bill, I continue to enjoy your thought process. Thanks for sharing your wisdom with us.

 

None with lower quality?? A bit of hyperbole?? Given a bit of time, I could probably name 100 worse. I would have a difficult time naming many unaccredited schools that are better.

CCU actually does require coursework, gives limited exemption for prior learning, and has a decent reputation. It may not be Harvard or Podunk U, but it does provide education and a useful degree.

 

Someone earlier referenced what is truly the differentiating factor between a legally operating, regulated - unaccredited school, and a true diploma mill - that is operating under a State's supervision. Despite what your opinions are of K-W, PW, CCU, CalPac, Century, SCUPS and the like - at least these schools meet a standard of legitimate state regulation/oversight. You might not like WY's requirements, but at least compliant schools are following established standards; if the bar rises, these schools will have to meet the new bar or fall out. Even Hawaii, which has been historically bashed because of lax regulations, has tighten their laws, and as JB has demonstrated - conform, or you are out. Therefore, had Laura had a degree from one of the aforementioned, while the press may establish that the school is unaccredited, she could state that at least the school is legally meeting the resident state's educational requirements, and is regulated by the state's DoE/Dept of Consumer protection.

Laura’s problem is that she chose a school, which claims religious exemption, and yet issues Business Degrees. It has been demonstrated that actual course work is fabricated and the school lists no faculty, and backdates transcripts.

I do not believe that all state operating schools, that are unaccredited, should be forced to become accredited. To me this amounts to something un-American like, and likely schools like PW, Century and the like would either go out of business, or raise their tuitions, thus, eliminating potential students/learners.

There has to be a middle of the road approach. However, clearly, if a school claims exemption, issues degrees outside of its reason for the claim in the first place, and avoids all state government oversight; the school is a mill. Perhaps WY should change its law exempting religious schools.

 

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: If Laura Callahan's Ph.D. had been from...?

imaginative, colorful, and vehement but there is no such thing.

My observation (based on first-person direct experience and experience in a variety of delivery and quality systems) is that they provide sufficient structure, guidance, and materials for an adult student to learn a subject in a government supervised and approved program. The State of California thinks so too. I suppose someone who requires a good deal of supervision may not like it or do well. You can refute that, but it is already a matter of public record. You might want to share your viewpoint after you've completed one of their graduate programs ...in say 2-5 years. If your quality comment is simply a rehash of the RA line... then please permit me to yawn...