Only available degree is NA....

Worth a look after I finish the lower level courses....kind of expensive. If I can't make it past ordinary differential equations and physics III, I've wasted a LOT of money....

 

There are probably some minimal residencies involved. Regardless, it is still worth taking a look.

An ABET, RA, online BS in engineering program...you don't see that very often.

 

Thanks Dave, and Kit, for your thoughtful opinions on this subject. I read so many threads on Grantham v. RA engineering v. ABET that I think I'm overflowing with specific details and I may be allowing these issues to cloud my mind.

This is the thread, in particular, on AED:

http://tinyurl.com/6yp86

No matter, however. I'm going to consider CNUAS very carefully. I plan to apply and ask a lot of questions and see what happens.

 

The other thing about California National is that it's a bit pricey. However, they are friendly and helpful and, no doubt, will provide you with a decent education.

Once you've done engineering for a few years, many states will allow you to take their F/E exam. (Not New Mexico. I don't know why)

 

No one may have said it in quite that way, but that impression can certainly be felt by any given reader. I had been reading this forum and alt.education.distance for well over a year before finally registering to post here. (Chose this forum over the usenet group alt.education.distance simply because this one has better information and the general atmosphere seems a bit more sane, maybe because it's moderated.) While I agree no one here totally trashes NA, it does have it's critics both subtle and otherwise. (A "total" trash would be say, comparing NA education to degree mills. No one has done that.) A few have, at times, even seemed almost apologetic in their "defense" of NA education. That's the issue, all that subtle (a few times not quite so subtle) criticism can leave the impression that it's "RA or the highway", even if no one actually verbalizes it in exactly that manner.

Whoa...not sure how that came about. But, just to set the record straight: Yes, I believe in CHEA recognized accreditation. No, I do not support or recommend U.S. schools that are not accredited by CHEA recognized accreditors. It's tough not to realize there are some people out there who do support unaccredited schools, and there may indeed be some unaccredited schools that provide a fine education. But IMHO, a school earning CHEA recognized accreditation is a good idea for the very same reason that many individuals earn college degrees in the first place. It's not about what you know and can do, it's about what an accredited institution says you know and can do. The same applies to colleges. It's not just what they teach or its quality, it's about a legitimate accreditor's verification. Utility of RA vs. NA is, as you noted, an entirely different subject. Except that I would include myself among those who may be contributing to the wrong impression about NA, because I always suggest RA over NA whenever possible precisely because of its greater future options and expanded utility. But that doesn't mean I think NA is useless. If RA is possible, great. If not, for any reason, then go for NA.

I believe, and it seems you do as well, that anyone pursuing a CHEA recognized NA degree should go full steam ahead, get the most out of their chosen program, and be rightfully proud of their accomplishment once they successfully finish. So, it seems on most points we actually agree! (Except perhaps on that pesky "implied impression" vs. "verbatim verbalization" thing.)

Kit

 

It is true that you could classify us as a special interest, but in this case, our special interest matches world reality.

I should mention that I like DETC, I have high hopes for DETC, I semi-regularly exchange e-mails with Mike Lambert (exec. dir. of DETC), and I believe him to be a good, honorable man. I even have a very brief interview with him here on my website.

And the reality is that DETC, at this point in time, is less accepted than regional accreditation. If there is a reason that a number of folks here have offered a preference for RA, that would be it.


Tom Nixon

 

Hi Kit

I agree that we both seem to agree on accreditation at least 90%. I think you did leave one impression that is incorrect. You used two phrases, "RA or nothing" and "RA or the Highway", suggesting that Degreeinfo leaves that impression either directly or indirectly.

That is 100% incorrect. I can't think of even one regular or non-regular poster here that would use anything close to those terms. As I mentioned before the people who use those terms are typically proponets of unaccredited schools or just critics of Degreeinfo. (I am not suggesting you are either just falling into their trap.)

People who use those terms are either intentionally or unintentionally creating a straw-man arguement that is both inaccurate and unfair. They are literally putting words in the mouths of people that are not in any way accurate. They do it, in my opinion, because their arguement is weak and they are emotionally attached to their position.

An accurate description would likely be that most, not all, here believe that RA has significant advantages over lesser accreditations. This position is quite provable. When people argue against it, they quickly become frustrated by mountains of facts that they battle. Those who are less than honest resort to the straw-man arguement which just mentioned or other inaccurate accusations.

So, Kit, forgive me for going into this in detail, but the inaccuracy and dishonesty of those two terms merit it. If anyone wants to argue against RA accreditation, fine, but do it accurately and honestly.