Is cost enough to justify an unaccredited program?

Agreed, Uncle J! Stellar, indeed, it is! Thanks to Nosborne48 for starting this thread - and to all posters herein. (This provides continuing evidence to serious DL stakeholders that DI is in a class all by itself!).

I'd agree with you, there, save for that vexing little word, "never." Substituting "almost never," for it would almost certainly guarantee a slam dunk for you, I think.

To answer your (Nosborne's - and Jack's) "need for unaccredited degree" question in another way, I would surmise that one may pursue an unaccredited program or degree if:

- one has no thoughts of ever serving in, or benefiting from, the (US) federal government (because unaccredited degrees are explicitly barred for federal employment or most federal tuition assistance programs), or

- one has no thoughts of ever serving in, or benefiting from, many US state and municipal governments because increasingly, many are inserting language requiring "accredited 4-year college degrees" into their position vacancy advertisements, or

- one has no thoughts of ever working in, working for, or benefiting from, increasingly several private sector businesses and companies because they, too, are beginning to require possession of ""accredited 4-year college degrees" in their position vacancy advertisements.

- one has no thoughts of ever teaching or doing research in, most accredited US institutions of higher education ("the academy") because these places value not just your knowledge and expertise but where such knowledge and expertise came from or was vetted.

So ............. outside of economic reasons - i.e. outside of employment or service in US federal, state/local governments, most legitimate and accredited academic work, some important corporations and businesses - what is left for the holder of an unaccredited degree? Not much!

All things considered, personal satisfaction is certainly not trivial but it can be costly indeed!

Your point is well-taken about certain popular, though sometimes misguided, personages in the public arena such as "cussing rap stars, abusive athletes, etc." Do note, however, that they are just a part of, and do not represent, "public perception" overall.

There is a larger public out there - and their perceptions about the legitimacy, utility, validity, and quality of unaccredited and accredited degrees (and education) do matter. That is why it is important for us to engage in an active public education and information campaign. There is much work to be done. The public is documented to be overall, quite misinformed, about what accreditation is or means. Information may in fact advance the cause of DL scam prevention more than just law enforcement.

This reminds me of a response made by ODA's Alan Contreras in an online interview, I think held last year, when one questioner asked him to "let the market, not the authorities, decide whether or not unaccredited degrees and education" should exist." He valiantly responded, without missing a beat, somewhat like this (I am paraphrasing, of course): "The workings of the market alone do not suffice. The market can be, and is often, distorted and warped. There is a market for fake degrees that is why scammers are prospering."

Yes, the public (to wit, the market) needs to be better informed about accreditation or the lack thereof, and what it means to the individual - and to society.

Dr. Douglas: this is a good summary. I like it a lot. I think, however, that you left out one other (major) possibility: "Degrees from MOST schools that are not accredited might NOT and do NOT."
After all, this is what all the fuss is about. And, for the sake of newbies and many seekers of genuine DL opportunities, this needs to be said, loudly and clearly, and not minimized.

True, Jack! That is the clincher, isn't it: the presence or absence of, not just some clear way that someone can check up on the process, but some clear, INDEPENDENT way that someone can check up on the process. Many unaccredited entities mills claim that they are of acceptable quality because they have someone who can check up on the process - their own employees or agents checking on their own processes. Are we supposed to believe them because they say so? I would think not.

Newbies: pardon the repetition - but if you go ahead and acquire an unaccredited degree, you will most probably spoend the rest of your life defending the degree, or looking over your shoulder, listening for that tick, tick, tick and ........ It is nNot worth it, in my opinion, except in very very few instances (that this forum has described in several places).

Great thread! Carry on!

Thanks.

 

Better no degree than unaccredited degree?

As far as explaining all the life, well didn't apostle Paul had an issue of accreditation, Yes the students preaching gospels needed to be accredited by original apostles like James and Peter, they had a document / credential that allowed them recognition and access to teaching and spreading doctrines etc.

Paul proclaimed he didn't need such accreditation, why because he was not the student of Apostles that were the original 12 well 11.
He had a "professor" higher than their accreditation, while not having the credential and accreditation in the form accepted than,
Paul’s credentials "direct revelation from the Lord" evangelized
and turned Christianity in to what we know it to be today.

He was in minority, ridiculed and had to explain for the rest of his life the fact that he didn't hold accreditation.

" Some mills claim accreditation directly from god, this argument can be abused as well"

A Holistic practitioner - “unaccredited" degree helped my mother in law in a way that traditional medicine couldn't and when it was going to give-up.

Her Liver was almost gone, she needed transplant, all the doctors
gave her 3 to 6 months if she didn't get new liver.

The holistic practitioner examined her and basically told her to go on a special whole food diet, she ate raw meet in moderation, no processed foods at all, special list of oriental stores were she could buy the products etc.

In couple of months her health improved, color came back to her face, the liver began to rejuvenate and doctors were shocked to see her recovery, she is doing very well today, 12 years after that
situation.

Wile it is imposible to legislate everything the same is with accreditation, there is need for freedom in education in some limited situations.


Learner

 

Jake,

Maybe, maybe not?

Here's an interesting link to what the U.S. Office of Personnel Management (Operating Manual - Qualification Standards for General Schedule Positions - GENERAL POLICIES AND INSTRUCTIONS) has to say about accredited and unaccredited educational institutions:

http://www.opm.gov/qualifications/SEC-II/s2-e4.asp#e4a

 

BryanOats, "Thanks" for the link.

True, wiggle room can certainly be found, and used, intentionally or unintentionally, in the interpretation and use of some of the federal government's stated regulations and requirements.

Ethical challenges, one would note, continues to hound the current Administration in Washington, DC. There are even some high-level Bush-appointees who claim unaccredited degrees and are being paid by the taxpayer.

Note, however, that the above link states, in part, ........

"Non-Accredited/Other Education may be considered during the rating/ranking process when evaluating qualified job applicants who already meet minimum qualification standards. Such education may not, however, be used to meet minimum qualification standards, unless it meets one of the following criteria with respect to a college, university, or institution accredited as described in (a) above ...... "

The OPM has properly noted that although diploma mills are unaccredited schools, one should not make the mistake of judging all unaccredited schools as diploma mills. The caution is warranted but the requirement for using accredited degrees only to meet MINIMUM QUALIFICATION still stands.

It has been noted recently in the media that OPM qualification guidelines, which require that any degrees claimed by an applicant be obtained from an accredited institution, do provide for federal job applicants to substitute experience for education but does not override the accredited minimum qualification requirement.

Steve Nelson, director of policy and evaluation for the OPM's Merit Systems Protection Board has stated that "claiming to have a degree from an unaccredited school “is lying on your application. It is like saying you have been working for IBM Corp. whereas in fact you have been working for Integrated Ballistic Missile.”

So ... the need argument must include a consideration of ethics and character, in addition to economics and personal satisfaction.

For example, the US DOD's Deputy Secretary for HR, I believe, possesses an unacredited degree - and is still on the job. The heat from this flagrant anomaly will also stay on - and will always cloud his career, service and achievements.

The headache is not worth the eternal torment.

Thanks.

 

I agree with Rich.

If we go with the students'-forseeable-needs criterion all by itself, then we might have justified successful degree-mills. Lots of phony schools sell worthless degrees that are calculated to pass and therefore to have utility for their purchasers. Liberian accreditation was a recent attempt and it almost succeeded in elbowing its way into wider 'GAAP' acceptance. Schools operating in tandem with corrupt credential evaluators is something else that we've seen.

So not only must a school choice meet a student's needs, if the student subsequently tries to use any resulting degrees and certifications out there in the wider community, the community's needs have to be met as well.

I believe that's what motivated Oregon's legislation.

 

Absolutely, positively, unreservedly, what he said!

Thanks.

 

Don't underestimate personal satisfaction. A life without personal satisfaction wouldn't be very satisfying.

Your insertion of the words "otherwise professionally recognized" took an obvious objection out of my mouth.

How about this: Even a non-accredited program that's totally unrecognized by the professional world might nevertheless teach skills that are useful in one's vocational life.

But in that case any degrees or certifications that the school granted would be superfluous at best and misleading at worst. The education would have been a rather more interactive version of reading books down at the public library. Any work-related benefit accruing from that kind of education would reveal itself in subsequent job performance.

 

Surely there is never a justification for a genuine diploma-for-money mill?

An unaccredited degree that carries some other external recognition is by definition not worthless. (i.e. Psy.D. from SCUPS)

But maybe what I am REALLY saying is, "A worthless degree is worthless. If it isn't worthless, it's worth something."

Hardly profound!

 

Well said by both Bill and Rich!