Oregon and Kennedy-Western

You answered it yourself, it is the truth. If the truth is known then the value becomes almost worthless.

Why should people be allowed to pass off "worthless" degrees as having value? Why are you so against the truth being known?

 

Unaccredited degrees are not "worthless" by definition. Even Alan Contreras would agree with that statement. Since unaccredited degrees are not worthless by definition they therefore do not need any disclaimer such as the one Oregon uses. If the degree was from a diploma mill it should not be put on the resume at all since it has no meaning. If the degree is from a legitimate school who has not applied for accreditation or is too new to be accredited, it does not need a disparaging disclaimer after the disclosure on the resume.

 

The vast majority of them are indeed worthless, and will forever be, to the vast majority of legitimate degree-seekers, employers, accredited and legitimate educational institutions, organizations and nations.

Today, the very few unaccredited degrees that are academically not "worthless" appear to be the ones making urgent and irreversible moves to achieve legitimate accreditation.

On the other hand, the vast majority of unaccredited degrees are not worthless to the perpetrators and co-conspirators in this global scam. They bring in hundreds of millions in cash and credit card receipts each year into the gilded coffers of degree mill shills and experienced and neophytic scam artists all over the planet. So, in that sense you may be correct.

Thanks.

 

That depends on what definition you are using, I guess.

But non-accredited degrees ARE worthless in verifying a graduate's educational achievement, unless the person interpreting the degree is already familiar with the school that granted it and trusts what the school is doing.

Often times employers and clients simply accept that degrees are degrees. Accreditation is assumed, because most people are only familiar with accredited schools. A non-accredited degree disclaimer warns these people that the expected oversight and verifications are absent and that the school that awarded the degree may be enforcing any standard or perhaps none at all.

But isn't that precisely why people buy degree-mill degrees?

Why are you always so insistent that people should smear accedited and non-accredited schools together and that they should simply assume that every non-accredited degree is legitimate?

The problem with that is that you are just sneaking in your word "legitimate", without explaining why anyone should believe that it's true. But that's precisely the issue when the subject is accreditation.

 

By your very own definition used in your above response to Mr. Contreras, unaccredited degrees are worthless when the truth is known. Now I know that there are a very few cases where they are not really worthless. Those cases are either already approved by the ODA or easily approved by the ODA.

I agree that if the degree was from a diploma mill then it should not be put on the resume at all. However, our law likes to error on the side of giving the benefit of any legal doubt to the individual so the individual can still use a diploma mill degree on a resume, for example like a diploma from the Kennedy-Western Entity, as long as they make sure that the truth is known. (Are you really continuing to try to argue against the truth being made known?)

In my opinion, you've made a most convincing argument in favor of the new ODA proposed laws.

There have been a large number of diploma mill shills that visit here (and frequent diploma mill fan forums) that have argued that as long as it appears that the diploma mill is operating with a legal business license then it is a legitimate school. Some might even place you, Russ, in this category? Russ, can you please provide some examples so that I can be sure what you are really referring to here?

 

"Silly" - yes, and free to all above the rank of gentleman. (Let's hope the diploma mills don't start trying to sell it.)

 

Morgan (if I may call you so):

ABSOLUTELY MAGNIFICANTLY RIGHT!

That is EXACTLY why, in the good old days, lawyers were permitted to use the title "Esquire". EVERYBODY, whether lawyer or not, is entitled to call himself or herself "Esquire".

 

Most unaccredited degrees are worthless. I'd say well over 95 percent of the unaccredited suppliers whose names could be generated (John Bear's list has well over 2000) are either fake or clearly substandard.

A few unaccredited degrees (I should say, a few colleges)represent sufficient genuine college-level work to justify the award of a degree.

Therefore all unaccredited degrees need to be reviewed and evaluated by a knowledgeable party prior to their use as a credential. Not doing so means accepting that fake or substandard degrees are equal to genuine degrees.

Remember that the well-known fakes LaSalle of Louisiana and Hamilton of Wyoming had state approval, as do some other scams. This is a fact often overlooked or set aside in these discussions: state approval does not mean that a degree provider is genuine or has any kind of standards.

The Oregon disclaimer approach makes reasonably clear to anyone who might want to accept a degree from a user as meaningful that they need to check out the supplier.

Then the question becomes who does the evaluating and using what standards and conditions?

No private employer in Oregon except for certain colleges is required to use the ODA standards, or any other standards, to evaluate a degree. An employer can decide that a degree is sufficient because the school has a heavy name or the transcript is on nice paper. The employer, by doing so, assumes certain risks should the employee turn out to be incompetent.

Any employer, client or private citizen can ask ODA to evaluate the basic validity of a degree (for a fee of $50 for a domestic school), but they don't have to.

 

Another Lie

Is truth the cases against La Salle, Columbia State, Etc; however, I want to know Alan.

What is your solid rock evidence against the others State Approved Universities?

If you have solid evidence, go to court, to the FBI and shut down the Frauds.

Other thing, if you said that State Approved Universities are worthless, so, ODA approval is worthless, as well?

 

I think that Dr. John Bear had good section in his guide about the State approvals and how it was deferent from State to State and how it was deferent from Accreditation.

CA was special case.

Also there was a distinction between CA State Approved and other State Licensed schools.

I agree that some states are doing better job then other.

Its one thing to regulate degree granting institutions in one own state

It's another thing to authorize the use of degrees used in the State from out of that State US or International.
ODA is telling people who want to use their degree in Oregon
What is legal and what is illegal to Use in Oregon and a few sentences why they think so.

That’s all.

By the way Florida tried years ego to do the same.
They simply made the use of unaccredited degrees in state of Florida illegal.

I think someone challenged them in the court but don't remember what the outcome was.

 

¡Otra pendejada!

¿No te cansas?

 

Dr. Latin Juris, you owe Alan an apology for calling him a liar. Those cases mentioned were resolved in court. Why are you always so disgustingly wrong? I guess that it just goes with academic fraud territory?

 

Unfortunately, your logic is based on a statement Alan didn't make. He opined that as many as 95% of unaccredited schools were fake, making it all the more important that sufficient evaluative methods are taken. With no basis for doing so, you've turned his statement around.

You also fail to distinguish between state approval (which only some states actually undertake) and other forms of legal authority granted to these unaccredited schools.

 

Strang v. Satz, 884 F.Supp. 504, S.D.Fla.,1995.

Florida statute prohibiting people from claiming to hold academic degrees or titles unless such degrees or titles were conferred by accredited institutions violated First Amendment in that it was not narrowly tailored to achieve substantial government interest; state could have merely required those holding degrees from unaccredited institutions to disclose the fact that the institutions were unaccredited. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 1; West's F.S.A. § 817.567.

Gerontologist's use of the terms "doctor" and "PhD" was "commercial speech," for purposes of determining whether statute precluding one from claiming he holds an academic degree or title unless that degree or title has been conferred by accredited institution violated gerontologist's First Amendment rights. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 1.

 

DLJ:

You know this already but it is delicious and worth repeating.

The State of Oregon and the Oregon ODA have now - together with the states of Indiana, Michigan, New Jersey, S. Dakota and others in the works - done this or are aiming to do this beautifully, as in, for example (Oregon):

Within the state, all such entity "degree" holders must disclose to ALL that "such-and-such is unaccredited" on all resumes, business cards, portfolios, cover letters, application for jobs, etc., as in:

"KWE - Unaccredited. Degrees do not meet requirements for employment by State of Oregon or for work in any profession licensed by the State of Oregon for which a degree is required."

Music to my ears!

Thanks.

 

What Alan said is true.

He never said that state licensed universities are worthless.

Some are and some aren't. The point is that you can't just automatically assume that everything that's legal is also academically legitimate.

I would have thought that an attorney would be able to recognize that distinction.

 

I don't agree with that.

California's approval regime is more credible than some states' systems, but less credible than others. I don't know why CA-approval should be considered a special case.

It's true that California has more state approved schools than any other state. More than 2000 non-WASC private postsecondary schools, of which only about 10% are degree-granting. (Many of the latter have recognized accreditation from non-WASC accreditors like ACICS, ACCSCT, DETC, or the other five regionals.) But then again, California has 1/8 of the total US population.

California's also edgier, culturally, than some other states. So you see lots of little free-lance institutes busy teaching some rather alternative subjects. (I love that aspect.) But this avant-garde quality doesn't have a whole lot to do with the state approval regime.

I do think that the BPPVE has struck a pretty good balance between over-regulation and laissez faire. They weed out the worst mills without setting the barriers to entry too high for modest educational start-ups to scale.

Unfortunately, while California's regulations look fairly good on paper, its enforcement leaves something to be desired. That's probably inevitable when you have an underfunded office without a staff of attorneys trying to herd 2000 schools that behave like cats.

It's also true that California state licensing laws are sometimes (though not always) more liberal about accepting degrees from these schools than is the case in many other states. (It's a profession by profession deal.) That doesn't really have a lot to do with the state approval regime, either.

Personally, if I had to name the state system that's most unique, I'd probably point to the New York State Regents. NY seems to run a much tighter ship than California and boasts the only state-approval system recognized by the US Dept. of Education as an accreditor. But despite New York State having maybe half California's population, it doesn't seem to host anything like California's abundant lineup of state-approved degree-granting schools.

 

Lerner: Question for you:

Take a look at the two (arguably and demonstrably true) quotes, #1 and #2, below, by BillDayson (both of which I tend to agree with, as I believe would many DL experts and contributors here on Degreeinfo).

(A) If a budding entrepreneur-cum-scam artist intended on setting up an unaccredited "degree"-granting entity in one of the two states, CA or NY, which statement would point one in the most likely direction?

(B) Ditto .......... for a sincere, quality-driven, innovative education and business group seeking to establish an initially-unaccredited but state-approved degree-granting school to produce science, mathematics and technology teachers for possible employmenet/recruitment by selective, private high schools in a given state?
1.

- OR -
2.

Where do you suppose (A) is more likely to go? What about (B)?

For additional support, see how many reasons you could come up with for KWE's decision to locate and operate from the state of CA - even though it cannot market to or enroll "students" from that state - and weigh the likelihood of that entity's success (or lack thereof) in locating and operating from the state of NY with the state's blessing (licensure? or approval?).

Why is/was "CA a special case?" Also, do you wanna compare CA state-approval with Wyoming (or other state's) state-licensure?

Thanks.

 

This raises feelings of disbelief and a desire to make a wager involving my promise to eat silly things like hats and shorts.

 

I think it all depends at the point in history one whants to investigate.

1990 official catalog of the CA State Department of Education stated that CA Approval is equivalent to US Accreditation.


In 2000 it is deferent so is other states.

Take Hawaii in the 1980's - 90's and take Hawaii in 2000.

Laws change.

Learner