Is it OK for degree mills to give certificates?

Lying is not normal in a sales pitch. For starters, the US Government does not accept UA degrees for their employment requirements. You also cannot get licensed as an engineer or a physician with an unaccredited degree in the US. Professional organizations like the American College of Healthcare Executives will not accept a UA degree to qualify for membership. The list goes on and on..........

Since Rushmore does not submit itself to external evaluation of it's programs the way that Harvard, Stanford and EVERY OTHER ACCREDITED SCHOOL does, their claim of superiority is redicoulous on it's face. The burden is not on me to prove them wrong, they are wrong until they can prove otherwise.

 

Well, on this side of the world you go to prison if you use a degree from Rushmore University, a degree mill.

 

I think that your question is confused.

If somebody just sells academic awards without requiring the level of work that corresponds to the award, then what you have is dishonest by its very nature.

So 'No', a degree mill can't ethically sell meaningless certificates.

Whether they would be breaking the law by offering them is an entirely different question. That depends on the laws in the "school's" jurisdiction. If the thing is already operating legally as a degree mill, then adding certificates would probably be legal too.

But... you are asking a very good question if you substitute 'unaccredited' for 'degree mill'.

Here in California, there are something like 2,000 CA-approved schools. Of these, about 200 offer degrees and the rest offer courses, certificates and the like. They teach things like foreign languages (or English, many of them are ESL schools), office and computer skills (there are many of these schools), auto mechanics, welding, truck driving or massage. They include the barbers and bartenders "colleges". Every town in the state has several little proprietary schools like that.

Add all of the courses and training experiences that corporations and government agencies offer in-house to their employees. There's a vast amount of that too.

So yeah, non-accredited non-degree continuing education happens all the time. It's absolutely routine.

And people routinely put that stuff on their resumes. That happens all the time too. I guess that the bottom line there is being able to convincingly defend the education if any questions arise. Since there won't be any accreditor to point to, the responsibility falls squarely on the applicant.

That's one reason why degree mills offering certificate programs sounds so stupid to me. Even if by some chance the certificate program happened to be sound, the fact that the school that awarded it was simultaneously selling dishonest and bogus degrees would efficiently destroy the credibility of its certificates as well. Why should anyone take the risk of believing in them?

 

It's pretty clear that morleyl just doesn't get it. Perhaps an analogy will help.

Consider two companies, A and B, both of which claim to be good investments. Company A can show you an audited financial statement, from a well-known accounting firm, which demonstrates that it is extremely profitable. Company B has a very nice website that claims that it is extremely profitable; however, Company B refuses to allow independent auditors to evaluate its finances. The vast majority of investors will accept the claims of Company A, but will scoff at those from Company B.

Now consider two schools, A and B, both of which claim to offer great educations. School A can show you a comprehensive and current evaluation, from a CHEA-recognized accreditation agency, which demonstrates that it has excellent educational processes. School B has a very nice website that claims that it offers an excellent education; however, School B refuses to allow independent accreditors to evaluate its educational processes. The vast majority of scholars will accept the claims of School A, but will scoff at those from School B.

morleyl apparently believes that unverified claims on a website can generate the same degree of prestige and respect as a comprehensive evaluation by a respected accreditation agency. He is obviously wrong.

 

Well, I think you all misunderstood my position. The general definition of a diploma mill is that they sell paper for money without requiring any work. From the information on their website, it seems work is required unless I am missing something.

In respect to quality, I am not saying they are the same or better than Harvard. I am just saying if a school in their opinion claim that, its just a sales pitch. They feel their degree is more hands on that the usual school. Because they are unaccredited my not help but thats their claim leave at that.

I think the general idea here is when I make an objection and its automatic to be labeled as Apologist.

In simple terms what really makes you say Rushmore is a degree/Diploma mill? Educate me.

 

From the statement you mentioned on their website, they compared themselves to self-accredited schools. Now, if we want to have a quality discussion. I would prefer if you compare their approach with Harvard at face value and tell me whats worse or better. Not to pickup the least statement and make a mountain out of it.

 

I never said that Rushmore was a "degree mill" or "diploma mill". These are subjective terms that I don't use. Check my posts.

But I'll readily admit that I don't trust Rushmore, simply because it has a secretive "closed" attitude. It does not allow independent third-party evaluation of its educational processes, and these are the only kind of evaluations that I (as a third party) respect. Therefore I am skeptical of Rushmore's claims (and the claims of hundreds of other unaccredited schools).

Instead, I give the benefit of the doubt to "open" schools that let independent, recognized accreditors evaluate the quality of their educational processes. If Rushmore wants the benefit of the doubt, they are free to do the same.

"Open" processes = trustworthy, verifiable, credible.
"Closed" processes = suspicious, unverifiable, not credible.

Are you educated now?

No, there is no general definition of a "diploma mill" (which is one reason that I don't use this term). Some people do use your definition. Others extend it to schools that give degrees for non-zero, but still substandard, effort. The only legal definition that I know of (in Oregon law) applies the term to schools that lack government authorization, and does not address the level of work at all.

 

They compared themselves to Harvard Business School specifically and asserted that they were clearly better. I added nothing to what they said.

You are being disingenuous.

 

Legal definition of "degree mill" in Oregon

A "diploma mill" or "degree mill" is defined under Oregon Administrative Rules, Division 50, 583-050-0011 as follows:

Does Rushmore have any documented governmental authority to grant degrees, either within the US or outside the US ? If so, it is not apparent from their website, which doesn't even include a physical address (the website appears to be registered in the Cayman Islands). Thus, it is reasonable to suppose that Rushmore probably does qualify as a "diploma mill" or "degree mill" under points (b) or (c) of the Oregon definition.

While I don't necessarily endorse Oregon's definition myself, it certainly has at least as much validity as morleyl's.

 

YOu are trying to make a bigger deal than I intend for this exchange. you said they are a mill and I said no. The reason you are giving does not make sense.

I was clearly not defending them, just saying based on what they offer, its more than just a mill. I can't swear for what they may have done otherwise.

 

You don't think that lying to prospective students is evidence that the entity in question is a mill? C'mon!

I don't care what you intended for this exchange, you are in complete denial that Rushmore is a mill. Public servants lose their jobs for having degrees from that place.

 

In Michigan, for example, Rushmore degrees "will not be accepted by the Department of Civil Service as satisfying any educational requirements indicated on job specifications."

What we have here is a failure to communicate. morleyl apparently believes that any degree that requires a non-zero level of effort has validity. He is entitled to his opinion, but it is not widely shared.

Most other people believe that a valid degree must meet or exceed some minimum standard level of effort, as confirmed by third-pary evaluators. Non-zero isn't good enough.

 

Let me emphasize the my simple points again.

1. There is a difference between what is called outright diploma mills and unaccredited schools.

2. Within the context of unaccredited schools, the quality will obviously vary. Thats why some are called diploma mills and some reasonable to work with.

3. Unaccredited degrees are generally limited especially with government jobs or licensing.

4. I do not believe a school is simply not a diploma based on non-zero work. The school should require a reasonable amount of effort that's easy to recognized.

5. Unaccredited degrees may have some utility based on the requirement of the student. A person with a business may want to learn new business concept etc.

This as always been my position. If Rushmore is a low-quality unaccredited school then I could accept that with discussion of their process and faculty.

 

Back to the real topic.

Technically there is less issue for presenting a certificate from a diploma mill, but if they already have a bad record, then it defeats the purpose.

Personally, regardless of where the certificate comes from, it should require some degree of work whether its experiential, exams, classroom or combination.

Because accreditation is not required for certifications, you could probably use for work.

 

Without external validation by a neutral third party such as an accreditor, a professional body (APA, CalBar, ABA, etc...) an unaccredited degree is milled no matter how hard you worked to get it. I can buy a Rushmore degree. You can work for it. The difference? Nothing.

 

Maybe there is. But if a school won't allow close examination of its processes, then how do you tell the difference? You keep evading this simple question. If the difference cannot be distinguished in practice, then isn't it a waste of time to be concerned with it?

The quality probably does vary. But there is no accurate way to evaluate quality, if an unaccredited school won't cooperate with evaluators. And that's why many people simply assume that all unaccredited schools are potential diploma mills. If they won't cooperate with accreditors, then they must have something to hide.

OK

So how do you know that the amount of effort actually required by (say) Kennedy-Western or Rushmore is reasonable? Since they won't allow you to evaluate their programs, doesn't that make the "amount of effort" difficult to recognize, rather than "easy to recognize"?

You can study business concepts without getting an academic degree. No one objects to unaccredited schools offering instruction -- they have a constitutional right to free speech. But there is no constitutional right to confer degrees.

But we can't discuss their processes or faculty with any degree of assurance, because Rushmore does not disclose any detailed or verifiable information. So isn't such discussion a waste of time?

 

Well, I guess I have a right to my opinion without any hard feelings.

If you really want to know detials on Rushmore then talk to some of their graduates to see whats the scoop. Their website has lots of details on course approach and professors. Call them up.

You keep mentioning evaluators, but somehow I would think that Accreditation is voluntary in the US.

I am sure you will say same thing about Knightsbridge University and I would disagree with you as well.

 

Very true

Former students and current employees have a vested interest in the way the school is viewed, so why would I ask them?

Yes, and attendance and acceptance of these "degrees" is also voluntary. I opt not to attend, I suggest that to others as well.

You got that right.

 

That's called a "second-party" evaluation. But it's not credible. The problem is that the graduates of any unaccredited school -- even an outright diploma mill -- have an interest in promoting their own degrees.

That's called a "first-party" evaluation. But it's not credible. The problem is that the owners of any unaccredited school -- even an outright diploma mill -- have an interest in promoting their own degrees.

It depends. If you want your degree to be respected in the US, then meaningful third-party accreditation is mandatory.

Secretive, unverified educational processes = suspicious. Open, verified processes = praiseworthy. My understanding is that Knightsbridge falls into the former category, and so it doesn't get the benefit of the doubt.