Oregon and Kennedy-Western

Most excellent point, only the most blatant degree mills are obviously operating illegally. Even when they are operating illegally, there are still academic frauds running around saying that they are operating legally, take St. Regis University as an example. It took years for Liberia to officially state the SRU was operating illegally and SRU still won't admit that they are illegal. There's even an example of an "illegal" degree mill that had the owner sent to jail because it was proven in court that he was a bad guy and the institution continued to operate! LaSalle/LaSalle/Orion!

 

Thanks for further explanation I see your point.

I remember Levikoffs Type 1 and Type 2 Mill terminology, is it outdated?

But in KWU case they been around long time and there is no more exuse to be unaccredited.
Even legitimate unaccredited JHU works on TRACS accreditation.

I think the line is drown and today simply only very new school can justify its status as unaccredited and should get accredited ASAP.

 

Re: projection

Notwithstanding that this RA educated person cannot spell legitimate, this is a classic example of unaccredited school bias on this board. For those who say that no one on this board claims all unaccredited schools are mills, this disproves that claim. To state that all unaccredited schools are for the purpose of perpetuating frauds is totally wrong.

There should be a little more respect for those who have unaccredited degrees (such as CCU graduates over the last 32 years) than to call them frauds.

 

Typos Aside (oops!)

The reason that people get unaccredited degrees is to pass them off as accredited degrees. Period. It's fraud. Call them something else if you want, but calling a piece of paper from an unaccredited entity a degree is lying.

 

As I have stated before, this fact is beyond dispute. Although there may be some RA schools that accept NA degrees for a masters program, the majority will be told by their RA that their accreditation could be pulled if they accept a NA degree into an RA masters program.

It is easier for me to understand the rejection of a particular credit by an RA school than to understand the wholesale rejection of an entire bachelors degree program by an RA body. This is the type of educational elitism that the RAs have adopted and is a strong argument for reform of the system.

 

When has this indisputable event happened? Which RA accreditor told which RA school that it's accreditaton would be pullled if they accepted NA degrees. Give one verifyable instance of this or admit that you have no idea what you are talking about.

 

Re: Typos Aside (oops!)

This is simply not even close to being true. People get degrees for personal satisfaction as well, not just for employment. There are people in their eighties and nineties that have obtained their degrees because it was something they always wanted to complete and never had the time while they were working. If they get their degree from an unaccredited school, there have no incentive to try to deceive anyone.

To call all holders of unaccredited degrees liars and frauds clearly demonstrates the bias and arrogance of this board. Are you saying that anyone who has an unaccredited degree from a religious college that chose never to become accredited a liar and fraud? Are you calling all graduates of Bob Jones University liars and frauds?

Your post defames anyone that chose not to bow down to the gods of accreditation and took a different path for their higher education. There is nothing wrong with that decision no matter what you or anyone else on this board says. RAs do not own the word "degree."

 

Steve Levicoff's definitions were never anything official, although I think they are very accurate and useful. For those who don't know, Steve defined the two as;

Degree mill - A school that does require some work, but less work and of less quality than required by a legitimately accredited school.

Diploma mill - A business that will sell you a diploma upon payment of a fee....no work or token work (a one-page book report) is required.

 

In this case the person would be passing off their degree as legitamate for the purpose of prestige instead of professional advancement. A lie by any other name......

 

It must be nice to live in a black and white world. By the way, it really is "legitimate" not "legitamate."

 

Typos Typos Typos

All of these typos will be the death of me.

I don't know about living in a black and white world, but it must be nice for you to live in a world where your kneejerk, subjective opinion about a school counts for more that the entire framework of accreditation which sets externally verifiable minimum standards for academic work. It's your world, buddy, I'm just living in it.

Have fun on your slippery slope.

 

Re: Re: Typos Aside (oops!)

Russ, you are once again demonstrating your ignorance and your willingness to twist the truth into falsehood in order to attack the position of others. I do not say that all unaccredted degree holders are liars and frauds. Most here do not. Repeating this stupid lie of yours is doing nothing but demontrating your own willingness to twist the truth and lie. No matter how many times you repeat this lie it will not make it true.

 

Re: Typos Aside (oops!)

I agree that most people get degrees, whether they are accredited or not, in order to impress other people. But sometimes people do enroll in academic programs because they are actually interested in the subject being taught. And occasionally non-accredited schools offer attractive programs that are hard to duplicate elsewhere.

It might be, if somebody suffers damages as a result of relying on false and misleading claims.

I think that if it's lying, then what makes it lying is the inferior academic standard that the degree may or may not represent, not simply the institution's accreditation status.

Put another way, I think that non-accredited degrees are fine if employers or clients know and trust the institution that awarded them. That's not fraud and it's not lying. But it only works when everyone is already on the same page.

If problems arise, they arise when non-accredited degrees are presented to people who aren't familiar with the institution that awarded them, people who simply assume that the degree means what similar sounding degrees mean. Unfortunately, with non-accredited schools it's usually dangerous to assume that. Non-accredited degrees may mean anything or (more often) they may mean nothing.

 

In other words, you cannot come up with even one example. Stating it is "beyond dispute" doesn't cut it, especially when it's in dispute!

Self-check.

 

Harping on someone's typo demonstrates an utter lack of intellectual ability regarding the issue at hand.

You lead the league in unsubstantiated statements, "russ." Try backing up a few.

 

Mea Maxima Culpa

I understand your point, and I may be taking too hard a line, but for every interesting and seemingly unique UA degree program I'm sure there is a similar accredited program. I just don't buy into the argument that an unaccredited schools are legitimate (spellcheck!!) just because the students involve "work really-really hard" at them. There is a framework for ensuring academic quality through accreditation for a reason. Guys like Morgan and Russ are that reason.

 

A degree is a proxy. It deigns to represent a body of knowledge mastered by the degree holder. To perform this function, the degree must be issued by a school known to meet expected academic standards, thus assuring others the degree holder has met sufficient standards to warrant the award of the degree.

Claiming a degree from an unaccredited school, in most cases, fails this test. There are exceptions, of course, and we all (or most of us) seem to be able to accommodate these. But that is not the same as accepting unaccredited degrees carte blanche. That would be foolish.

This is not "bias." It is a fair conclusion based on the available evidence. If "russ" and his ilk would like to prove otherwise, they're more than welcome to do so. But shooting the messengers is not the way to go about it, and is an academically bankrupt approach.

But the degree mill shills do not attempt this. Rather, they complain about "bias" and about not having their way unfettered. Well, too bad.

 

Well said.
Jack

 

Exactly! An excellent synopsis, indeed. Thanks, Dr. Douglas.

Which brings me/us back to my/our thus far, many unsuccessful attempts to get Russ and his ilk to define for us what, to him/them, a "standard" is.

They have yet to do so.

A while back Russ was invited by several Degreeinfo experts and contributors to attempt to draw a defining line between what he claims are "good" unaccredited entities and diploma mills, and even share an example or two, with us. He has steadfastly refused, or been unable, to do so.

So, here, one more time, is an excerpt from a post from about a month ago, originally addressed to Russ.

No more bobbing and weaving, hemming and hawing, sliding and dodging. Just answer the question(s) and rescue whatever little credibility you have left.

So, how about it, Russ? Suffer us one more time by telling us what a standard is or should be. Note that a simple "yes" or "no" will do, for questions #3 and #4 above, but feel free to elaborate if you want to. I, for one, want to understand how that mind of your works (or does not).

Thanks.

 

Jake_A: Why in the world should Russ be the one to set standards? Aren’t you turning things around? (Are you, the Captain of the “Truth Squad,” doing this to purposefully deceive Newbies?).

Why should the individual (viz. Russ), who is championing that the present system, which allows for independent self-governing schools to co-exist with accredited schools, and allows the market to decide, be the one to set standards? Shouldn’t that be your task? Is it not you (our illustrious Captain of the Truth Squad) who is the one calling for changes to the system? Is it not you who would close the doors of all non accredited schools? If so, then it is you who should tell us who, what, why and how (other than that you have thrown your chips in with the authorities). Why should the one advocating openness (viz. Russ) have to draw the lines? Isn’t that the burden of the individual arguing on behalf of exclusion (viz. you)?

Let’s look at it from some different angles:

Russ says that all professional baseball leagues and players should be given the opportunity for respect (regardless of whether or not they are AAA, Texas League, Canadian, Japanese league, or “major league”). You, on the other hand, would argue that some of the aforementioned deserve the opportunity for respect while others do not. Isn’t it your job to tell us your criteria of how you have made your determinations?

Another example: Russ says that all cars should be allowed on the road. You, on the other hand, tell us that certain cars should not be licensed, and others should. Isn’t it your burden, then, to inform us of how you came to determine who gets licensed and who isn’t road worthy?

Finally: Russ says that the army, navy, air force and marines are all equally valuable. You tell us that some are superior or inferior to the others. Shouldn’t you be the one to tell us how you determined that?

(Newbies, Listen up: this is a typical tactic of the RA Knights and Zealots to confuse you, repeated over and over again).


Morgan Khanstein, Esq.