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

Discussion in 'Accreditation Discussions (RA, DETC, state approva' started by Guest, Jun 9, 2003.

Loading...
  1. RJT

    RJT New Member

    Gov't Regulatory Oversight

    You may not agree, or like WY's policy, but the WY State Department of Education does establish governtment reluatory oversight of the postsecondary insitutions which legally operate, yet do not posess regional accreditation within its boarders. As the matter of fact - the new amendments:

    Increase state fees and bond requirements for nonaccredited private schools and outlines when their licenses can be suspended or revoked.

    Gives the state authority to make unannounced inspections and require that the schools have an office staffed by at least one full-time employee.

    Current laws require that 50 percent of instructors at private schools to have master's or doctor's degrees. The new bill extends a bachelor's degree requirement to the other faculty members. Furthermore, the degree must be from a regional accredited institution to prevent schools from issuing degrees to their own instructors.

    This is in addition to existing regulations, such as:

    21-2-401. State Board of Education to Administer and Set Minimum Standards; On-site Inspections by State Department

    The board shall establish minimum standards for all schools...and provide for the investigation and evaluation of the schools as necessary to administer this article. In addition, the board shall, prior to issuing any license under this article and not less than once every three (3) years thereafter, inspect and visit the principal place of business of each degree granting post secondary education institution.

    21-2-402. Institutional Requirements and Standards

    Demonstration of financial stability through review of current financial statement prepared or audited by a certified public accountant.

    Illustration of instructional methods used by the institution including methods of assigning, monitoring and evaluating work, awarding credit and granting a degree.

    Supply professional credentials for each instructor of the institution including official academic transcripts verifying academic status, educational degrees attained and the degrees attained are from institutions accredited by a recognized and accepted accrediting agency as defined by the department rule and regulation.

    In addition, verification must be provided that not less than fifty percent of the instructors employed by the institution have received a masters or doctorate degree in their respective field of study from a college or university accredited by a regional accrediting association recognized by the United States Department of Education.

    21-2-404. Prohibited Practices

    No post secondary educational institution under this article shall award a degree, earned or honorary, solely on basis of payment of tuition or a fee, nor shall the school award a degree solely on the basis of:

    a) Credit earned at another school;
    b) Credit for life experience or other equivalency;
    c) Testing out of required coursework leading to a degree;
    d) Research or writing;
    e) Any combinations of factors specified above.

    You may not agree with the standards, but they exist, and legal schools like, Kennedy-Western operate within these requirements daily. Proud to be an American where the freedom to choose amongst many different legal options exists.

    Perhaps what needs to be reread is wht the website of the Department of Health, Education and Welfare, Office of Education, Bureau of Higher and Continuing Education, Division of Eligibility and Agency Evaluation states:

    "The United States has no Federal ministry of education or other centralized authority exercising single national control over educational institutions in this country. The States assume varying degrees of control over education, but, in general, institutions of post secondary education are permitted to operate with considerable independence and autonomy. As a consequence, American educational institutions can vary widely in the character and quality of their programs.

    "Degrees granted or issued in conformance with cited statutes...are all equally legal under the law. Judgements of value and applicability of a certain degree are not made by the law or by the State. The appropriateness of a degree or the applicability of a degree to a job or the transfer of education credit is decided by those who must render such evaluations for those specific purposes."

    (United States Department of Education)
     
  2. Kirkland

    Kirkland Member

    So.... getting back to this thread, are the folks here saying that if Ms. Callahan (what ever happended to her anyway?) posted a doctorate from K-W that she would have faced the same pounding she got for claiming one from Hamilton?

    If so, are there any licensed schools from Wyoming that you think would have passed muster?
     
  3. c.novick

    c.novick New Member

    I think Ms. Callahan may or may not have been pounded, but her "degree" would have been at least legal under WY law.
     
  4. kf5k

    kf5k member

    Re: Gov't Regulatory Oversight

    Accurate information RJT but you know what is about to happen, good luck. Try not to get any blood in the water. :)
     
  5. BillDayson

    BillDayson New Member

    Re: Re: Gov't Regulatory Oversight

    Would you like to explain 21-2-401 to me?

    21-2-401.

    ...In addition, the board shall, prior to issuing any license under this article and not less than once every three (3) years thereafter, inspect and visit the principal place of business of each degree granting post secondary education institution.


    If "universities" are only required to maintain a one-person office in Wyoming while they conduct their actual business elsewhere, what "principal place of business" is being visited, precisely? What purposes are the visits intended to fulfill?

    In particular, what relevance do these site visits have to the Preston empire:

    Q. Does Preston University USA have other campuses?

    A. Yes, Preston University has affiliated campuses located in the various countries listed below:

    _10 campuses in Pakistan located in Islamabad, Rawalpindi, Karachi, Lahore, Peshawar, Hyderabad, Multan, Faisalabad, Quetta and Gujranwala.

    · campuses in Spain located in Seville, Cordoba, Tenerife and Algeciras

    · 2 campuses in Russia located in Volgograd and St. Petersburg

    · 3 campuses in India located in New Delhi, Calcutta and Hyderbad

    · a growing number of campuses in China_located across the country in cities including, Jilin City, Harbin, Xian and other locations.

    · 1 campus in Ajman, United Arab Emirates

    · 1 campus in Chittagong, Bangladesh

    · 1 campus in Tbilisi, Georgia

    · 1 campus in Casablanca, Morocco

    · 1 campus in Medan, Indonesia

    · 1 campus in Finland located in Ylivieska
     
  6. Gus Sainz

    Gus Sainz New Member

    Re: Gov't Regulatory Oversight

    The spelling and grammar of your statement is a testament to how much oversight Wyoming actually does of the post secondary institutions in the state. All the same, if you want to discuss your severely edited and paraphrased excerpts of Wyoming’s statutes for licensure, very well.


    How does increasing state fees (perhaps the reason there are no real educational standards in the first place) insure educational effectiveness?


    A school like KW would obviously meet this requirement as they have two clerks working in a basement office in Wyoming. But what, precisely, would be inspected in an unannounced visit to this office? (Please forgive any typos in my responses from this point foward; I am laughing so hard my eyes have watered. One full-time employee?)


    Therefore, as opposed to instructors with no degrees whatsoever, they now require at least a Bachelors degree. I guess this is an improvement. However, why do you think they required the degree to be from a regionally accredited institution? Why is it that a degree from another Wyoming-licensed institution is not acceptable? Don't they have confidence in their own "standards"?


    The way you have presented the excerpts that follow is extremely dishonest and misleading. I guess you don’t realize that if you have to resort to dishonesty to prove a point, your argument is obviously without merit.


    This is blatantly dishonest. W.S. 21-2-401 actually reads:

    21-2-401. License required; state board of education to administer and set minimum standards; in-state office required; on-site inspections by state department.

    In other words, 21-2-401 simply states that a license is required and the state board of education will administer and set the minimum standards for that license The way you phrased it, it sounds as if the State Board of Education is enforcing a set of minimum educational standards, which they clearly state they do not.


    More dishonesty. The full statement reads:

    The board shall establish minimum standards for all schools described in subsection (a) of this section and provide for the investigation and evaluation of the schools as necessary to administer this article.

    The part you conveniently left out, subsection (a), simply sates that all non-exempt schools need to be licensed before operating or doing business in the state. Therefore, the “investigation and evaluation of the schools” is solely for the purpose of administering licensure.


    Does this mean that Wyoming is inspecting K-W’s principal place of business in California?


    I challenge you to show the members of this forum where the phrase “Institutional Requirements and Standards” appears anywhere in statutes W.S. 21-2-401 through W.S. 21-2-407. The statute reads:

    21-2-402. Licensure; post secondary education institutions; application; fees; suspension and revocation.

    The fact that you must resort to such dishonesty speaks volumes. Moreover the selected items you posted have nothing to do with educational standards; they are simply a partial list of the items that should be included in the application for licensure.


    This is irrelevant, as schools like K-W are nothing if not highly profitable money-making machines.


    Where can these methods of assigning, monitoring and evaluating work, awarding credit and granting a degree be found? This is one of the biggest complaints against schools like K-W. The methods are not stated up front and do not appear to be the same for everyone.


    This is no different that the requirements for a barbershop.


    This requirement is as close as the State of Wyoming gets to any kind of educational standard. Why do you think the State of Wyoming considers this requirement for licensure important? Would you care to take a guess?


    Once again, not exactly how the statute reads, is it? Never mind. This is where it gets weird. On the one hand, a school that offers a single course, with an unproctored, open book exam consisting of a single true-false question meets the requirements. On the other hand, several well-recognized and legitimate factors that would form the basis for awarding a degree are prohibited.


    You really must look up the word "standards" in a good dictionary. The whole point of standards is to form a basis for comparison. For example, the State of Wyoming could insist that, as a requirement for licensure, the dean of the school have a daily bowel movement, but that isn't much of a standard, is it?


    Yes, yes, the old, tired, “it’s legal” argument (this time all wrapped up in Old Glory). However, these options aren’t exactly legal in every state (including K-W’s home state of California), are they?


    The quotes you provided do nothing to bolster your argument, quite the contrary. The statemnts are not intended to support the concept of state rights, but instead to serve as an ominous warning. The following two statements are key.

    "As a consequence, American educational institutions can vary widely in the character and quality of their programs.”
    This seems to be a diplomatic way of saying that some of these legal state-controlled institutions of post secondary education are crap.

    "Judgements of value and applicability of a certain degree are not made by the law or by the State."
    This statement makes it clear that just because a degree is legal or from a state-licensed school doesn’t mean it has any value or utility. This, of course, is common sense; just because something is legal doesn’t make it a good idea or recommendable.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Jun 14, 2003
  7. Gus Sainz

    Gus Sainz New Member

    Re: Re: Gov't Regulatory Oversight

    Let’s see. First, you chastise and denigrate forum members for posting excerpts from the statutes in spite of the fact that they are accurate quotes. Then you applaud RJT for posting excerpts that are highly edited, dishonestly paraphrased, and extremely misleading. By describing his statements as “accurate information”, you prove that you are guilty of what you accused others—not reading the statutes. On many levels, your statements can only be described as hypocritical. :rolleyes:
     
  8. BillDayson

    BillDayson New Member

    Wyoming is tightening up! Here's one of their tough new requirements:

    That's really STRICT. Those heartless Wyoming legislators must be Nazis.

    So how have things been prior to this reform?

    What numbers are less than one?

    Given office staffs of zero, appointments probably were necessary to get somebody to fly in from out-of-state to unlock the door.

    I'm speculating, but this really sounds as if some purportedly-Wyoming universities were just dealing with Wyoming property firms by phone, renting the cheapest office cubicle they could find and only putting someone in it for one day every three years when the state made an appointment to "inspect".

    And I STILL wonder what it is that the sharp eyed officials are looking for there in Wyoming while universities are performing their actual academic and administrative functions (such as they are) outside the state.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Jun 14, 2003
  9. kf5k

    kf5k member

    Re: Re: Re: Gov't Regulatory Oversight

    Your remarks can be taken to be a typical shark attack that tries to intimidate others from posting,. Your views and the views of the dozen or so members of the pack that verbally attack RJT speak loudly but not loud enough. Just because this group of members gang up on anyone speaking positively about approved schools dosen't mean you represent the views of the 4000 members of this forum. Posting over and over attacking the oposition doesn't mean your views are right. I expect the views of the entire forum is more moderate and willing to listen. You only represent your views and those of the sharks. There is a place for schools like CCU -Chadwick and the others, and I intend to keep saying this, so do your worst. My views will not be driven away by group attacks.
     
  10. c.novick

    c.novick New Member

    kf5k

    There are many who share your views, and RJT's views. You are right on target.
     
  11. Gus Sainz

    Gus Sainz New Member

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Gov't Regulatory Oversight

    What views? You don’t post specifics or corroborate any of your averments with even a scintilla of proof. All you do is denigrate the postings of those you disagree with, and then cry foul when someone (with specific evidence) exposes your hypocrisy. Do you have more to offer than just whining and putting down the other members of this forum?

    Group attacks? What group attacks? You were the one who requested that (once again) we discuss the Wyoming statutes. You were the one who implied that no one on this forum had read them. As per your request, we are discussing them. What, specifically do you like about them? What, specifically, leads you to believe that they foster academic rigor?

    I, for one, don’t want to silence anyone. On the contrary, I believe that the postings of those who support unaccredited schools speak for themselves. Their refusal to answer even the most basic questions, their dishonest tactics, and the quality of their arguments (not to mention their spelling and grammar) exposes their alma maters and the education they received for what they really are—extremely sub-standard.
     
  12. Bill Huffman

    Bill Huffman Well-Known Member

    If you believe that K-W is not a degree mill then please explain why.

    1. K-W will not admit students in the legal jurisdiction that they actually operate from, California.
    2. Why their mailing address fled from CA to Hawaii.
    3. Why the address then fled from Hawai to Idaho.
    4. Why the address then fled from Idaho to Wyoming.

    The reason that K-W is fleeing is to avoid prosecution for being a degree mill. It is that simple. The reason they don't admit students from CA is so that they won't be prosecuted for being a degree mill. It is that simple. Although I would be extremely interested in any alternative explanations that you might have?
     
  13. kf5k

    kf5k member

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Gov't Regulatory Oversight

    Look at the way I'm described here- whining, dishonest tactics, hypocrisy, poor spelling and grammar, sub-standard education. This is what happens to any person that tries to disagree. Well my poor sub-standard education will just have to do, it's all I have, but I'm still entitled to my opinon without being attacked, and called names. If it takes an RA education to name call then you can keep it.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Jun 14, 2003
  14. Jack Tracey

    Jack Tracey New Member

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Gov't Regulatory Oversight

    Perhaps not, but the fact that none of them are coming forward to support your position certainly indicates that you're wrong in this regard as well. For me, the ironic aspect of this debate is that if you had spent the same amount of time and energy in earning your degree as you have in defending your degree, you'd doubtlessly have been able to earn an RA degree that would require no defense. You are providing a perfect illustration of the primary reason for not buying a non-accredited degree . . . the fact that you'll spend the rest of your life having to defend it (and convince no one).
    Jack
     
  15. c.novick

    c.novick New Member

    There is nothing wrong with kf5k's position. He is supported. Education is what you make of it. It is the learning process. Who has the right to judge what views are important to another.

    I know of "students" that have gone to RA schools and are no more intelligent for the "experience".

    kf5k and RJT do have support here!
     
  16. Gus Sainz

    Gus Sainz New Member

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Gov't Regulatory Oversight

    I don’t believe that anybody accused you directly, but what can I say? If the shoe fits…

    Your statements sure sounds like dishonest hypocritical whining to me.

    Disagree with what? Please show me where you have stated a clear concise opinion concerning the Wyoming statutes. On the contrary, in another post in this thread you wrote the following.
    • “I have asked people to read the statutes and decide for themselves what they represent. If asking people to read something and then form their own opinion scares peole then so be it. I've not stated an opinion as to the quality of these statutes, but I notice that the sharks are very willing to provide my opinion for me.”
    Let’s see. You accuse members of this forum of posting about something they haven’t read; you accuse people of being scared to form their own opinions; you admit not stating any opinions of your own; and you resort to name-calling by preemptively characterizing anyone who might disagree with you a shark.

    Please tell me, in light of the fact that in this thread alone you have referred to other members of this forum as sharks on at least three other occasions in addition to the example provided, why this latest diatribe of yours should not be characterized as dishonest hypocritical whining.
     
  17. BobC

    BobC New Member

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Gov't Regulatory Oversight

    I agree here. However, I believe you're fighting the wrong fight with Kennedy Western, there's better SA schools out there that really do deserve defending. My opinion has always been this board was way too slanted towards RA and not open minded enough for legit un-accredited schools. There's also like around 70+k posts altogether here, but when you see the regular's statistics, surprisingly it's really like the same 10-15 people posting over and over. I know of 3 members alone that make up 10% of all postings here on this board. I think this is one of the reasons why we see these same arguments over and over and nothing really fresh on this board lately.
     
  18. kf5k

    kf5k member

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Gov't Regulatory Oversight

    A person makes the fight that gets started. Your numbers agree with what I've discovered. I first thought that the views of this forum were fixed and intolerant untill I started checking who made these posts, and like you, found that 10-15 people presented the same or nearly the same views over and over. That far from representing the views of 4000 people, represented the strongly held views of 10-15 people only. I want people to feel free to post different views without being intimidated by the regular group. I would like to see many of these 4000 people saying good, bad, annoying, weakly held, strongly held, or just any opinion they hold.This will not happen if people, especially new posters feel they will be treated as idiots or criminals. I would prefer to have made this argument in another way at another time, but one cannot always choose when to make a stand. :)
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Jun 15, 2003
  19. BillDayson

    BillDayson New Member

    That's not exactly true, is it?

    I've made hundreds of posts about state-approved schools that I like or otherwise find interesting. I've started whole threads about them. I've actually put some effort into that.

    But all state-approved (or licensed) schools can't be embraced naively and uncritically. Given their lack of reliable outside verification, they (and their champions) have an added responsibility to make their case, to demonstrate their credibility in some alternative way.

    That's your real complaint against Degreeinfo, isn't it?

    It isn't that we are unwilling to consider state-aproved schools. It's that we don't accept all of them, automatically, no questions asked.

    I'll make three suggestions to everyone here:

    1. Stop trying to suggest that everyone must accept state approval (or licensing), and all the schools that fall under that description, automatically and without objection. Don't defend the category in general.

    2. Concentrate on identifying the more defensible schools from the approved/licensed category, and then try to make a strong credible defense of them. Defend schools on a case-by-case basis, when you truly believe that they deserve it.

    3. Don't recommend even the best of these schools blindly. They may have features (unusual programs or methodologies perhaps) that make them very suitable for some students, but drawbacks (reduced utility and limited acceptance perhaps) that make them extremely unsuitable for others. These things have to be considered very carefully, again on a case-by-case basis.
     
  20. BobC

    BobC New Member

    Bill you are correct!!!! However, I must say that if there were 5-10 more Bill Dayson's on this board the overall "feel" of this board would change a bit with regards to SA schools. I also believe SA schools can be defended quite well on a case by case basis. As I eluded in a previous post I think this effort is wasted on KW though, this is beating a dead horse and their history let's just say is, questionable.
     

Share This Page