Oregon and Kennedy-Western

Saying it doesn't make it so.

I think that what you are referring to was a statement of intention. In other words, California didn't intend to approve substandard schools.

The state subsequently dropped the language that you refer to, not because they had suddenly decided to enforce a lesser standard, but because the language was misleading and didn't really correspond to the facts.

I'm a native Californian who has been interested in the state's "non-traditional" sector since the 1970's. I haven't noticed any evidence that California's state-approved schools were better in the past than they are today.

(But people in the 70's were probably more credulous than we are today. There was a lot of 60's idealism in California in those days. People weren't as worried about annoying things like mills and accreditation. They were too busy bending spoons and photographing Kirlian auras.)

California once had a separate and rather minimal 'state-authorized' category as well, that was similar to what Wyoming is doing today. As a result California turned into a notorious haven for degree-mills. That 'authorized' category was subsequently abolished and the mills were given the choice of meeting the somewhat tougher state approval standards, closing, or leaving the state. Many of them simply relocated their addresses to Hawaii.

So if anything, California has cleaned up its act over the years.

 

http://iteso.mx/~carlosc/pagina/acadi/lenguajemex.htm

Me voy a limpiar el culo con esto.

 

Actually, this kind of language appeared in whatever legislative act re-authorized the CPPVE. But no one (NO ONE!) paid it one iota of attention. It's not like the state's public schools suddenly started accepting credits and degrees from unaccredited, state-approved schools. It didn't mean--or change--a thing.

 

My question, Alan, is where is that exact line between standard and substandard? How do you define that? Does your instruction require a professor teaching you or can a textbook of college level work which you read and are tested on qualify? It seems to be more difficult to not have a professor to help explain sophisticated concepts to you than to have one. Therefore, would it not require more work to use just a textbook to learn than a class?

I am really not clear on how we define a substandard education according to the ODA's definition. If you have answered this before, feel free to link me to the answer. Thanks.

 

It has been answered a number of times. IIRC, the answer is that standard is defined by Oregon law to be equivalent to RA. This make perfect sense because that is what defines it for the vast majority of schools and graduates within the USA. It is only a few (like yourself) that have a different set of standards for what a degree means, most of these people are either sellers of substandard degrees or holders of substandard degrees.

 

You have been leading the criticism of the ODA, but you don't already know the answer to that? Amazing.

The Oregon definitions are set out in the appropriate sections of the Oregon Administrative Rules. The ODA website has links to them.

Here's the definitions that the ODA uses:

http://arcweb.sos.state.or.us/rules/OARS_500/OAR_583/583_050.html

It looks to me like the ODA bends over backwards to be accomodating to out of state non-accredited schools. Theoretically, they need to be academically equivalent to schools with US Dept. of Education recognized accreditation. (OAR 583-050-0006(2)(c)) But the definitions of "substandard" and "degree mill" in the Rules aren't all that demanding.(OAR 583-050-0011(10) and (11))

Actually, the OR-approval standards for Oregon local schools are a LOT more demanding than what's necessary to keep out-of-state non-accredited schools from falling into the "substandard" or "mill" categories defined above. (The OR-approval standards are in OAR 583-030-0035)

http://arcweb.sos.state.or.us/rules/OARS_500/OAR_583/583_030.html

 

Russ, your questions are good ones and they have been ably answered by BillDayson and Bill Huffman (above) and of course, by Alan Contreras in his references to the relevant Oregon statutes.

I have some questions for you, Russ.

Do answer, please. I do not intend to be confrontational (....smile, not today). I just am curious and earnestly seek your perspective on this issue. I also must commend you on what I perceive to be the relative lack of hostility in some of your recent posts in these forums.

Russ, you may consider all of the following questions as separate or as distillable into one, so proceed with your answer(s) as you see fit.

1. Do tell us what standard/substandard is or should be.

2. In your mind, Russ, and by YOUR own definition, is standard and substandard (as used in discussions of educational achievement and degree attainment) different or the same with no "exact" demarcation lines?

3. Is it your contention that the Oregon ODA, or any state for that matter, cannot demonstrate, and thus should refrain from, stating that there is a significant or measurable difference between standard and substandard?

4. Does the statement: "the delinieation of standard from substandard is in the eye of the beholder - education or degree-seeking student, employer, business, or whatever" a fair characterization of your position?

Thanks.

 

More Music Jake A

Disclosure that a person's Ph.D or claim of title such as "doctor" is from an institution unrecognized by the State of Florida or by the Federal Government would be more likely to make a positive contribution to and to aid in decisionmaking than concealment of such information.

Requiring such disclosure thus would serve the government's substantial interest in protecting Floridians who may rely on the titles of "Dr." and "Ph.D" when they seek services. Such disclosure also would ensure First Amendment protection to truthful, albeit potentially misleading, commercial speech.

See

Peel, 496 U.S. at 108, 110 S.Ct. at 2291.

Strang v. Satz884 F.Supp. 504S.D.Fla.,1995.

 

California equal to accredited?

I see that there has been chat in this thread about the humorous assertion in California law a while back that California approval is equivalent to accreditation. A few things to keep in mind about this.

1. It has meaning only inside the state of California. It is laughed at everywhere else except by shills and users.

2. That meaning is nil except in a few situations inside California relating to state license applications, as I understand the situation.

3. It shows an appalling lack of care for academic standards on the part of the legislature, which is neither surprising nor especially important.

4. No other state, country, cow or space alien outside California is required to pay any attention to it, and we don't.

(NOTE: I know Russ considers me to fall in the space alien category, but in this case I am vox oregonus).

 

This is very funny reply Alan.

But why such a disrespect to CA cunterparts.

If CA state laws to be ignored and are joke then maybe other states laws in this issue can be rediculed as well.

I'm a little surprised to hear this from you.

maybe it's my English ?

In a way you are disrespecting your own State its like a bumerang.

Am I missing something.

 

Sometimes legislatures make stupid laws. Or write stupid things in their law. California claiming that state approval is equivalent to accreditation is similar to laws giving an exact value of Pi.

 

The problem is that the state of California has no jurisdiction whatsoever over what a federally recognized accreditor's standards are, and therefore has no way to determine whether California standards are actually equivalent except to make a direct comparison of each standard every few months, forever. This of course has never been done and never will be.

What they have done is make an arbitrary political statement that the standards are equivalent, completely unrelated to the question of whether they are actually equivalent. This was done, as I understand it, to allow people who get degrees from the many unaccredited California suppliers to apply to obtain professional licences in the state.

Declaring that state authorization is equivalent to accreditation is like declaring that for political purposes, a sheriff's water patrol boat is in fact a battleship. Sure, the words can be spoken and passed into law and the state can paint "BB California" on its side, but the world's naval powers are not likely to pay much attention.

By the same token, many schools that my office authorizes are not accredited and their degrees are not usable for some purposes, but then we don't pretend otherwise.

 

"BB Californa"?

Either your age or your fascination with Navy history is showing, Mr. Contreras!

The BBs! The Iowa Class battleships! Enormous and obsolete almost from the day they were launched.

New Jersey was recommissioned for Viet Nam, blew a few hillsides to atoms at hideous expense and back to mothballs with her!

I used to drive by Missouri every day on my way to work at Puget Sound Naval Shipyard. Don't know where she is now.

Then, the Navy got the bright idea of recommissioning ALL FOUR of them...I never understood WHY except maybe to provide surface line captains with really BIG sea going commands. Carriers, of course, require flight qualified COs.

Didn't last long that time, either. I knew a fellow who was serving on the Iowa when the turret blew up and killed several sailors. The Navy didn't even bother to repair her. Quite right, too.

Commander Nosborne, USNR (for about six more weeks!)

 

Cmdr Nosborne, I have actually walked the decks of the USS Missouri. I'll let that fact confuse the chatlist people for a while, though you'll probably figure it out, given your background.

And if you like, I'll send you my poem on the defense of Taffy 3. It makes a change from degree validations.

 

At times.

You'll do well to record that the term is "counterparts."

 

Re: California equal to accredited?

No, it didn't. It had no meaning academically in California. UCLA didn't suddenly open its doors to CCU grads or anything like that.

It may have had a temporal effect on some licensing situations, but California's always been a little hyper in that area anyway. (See law and psychology.)

As for "everywhere else," I respectfully disagree as well. Employers seem to accept state approval at nearly the same level as they do some forms of accreditation. That is, until someone explains to them what state approval and state licensure mean (and don't mean). Then it changes. But the point is, students seem to get by with state approval, even if largely due to their employers' ignorance.

There is no research that I know of demonstrating that California approval has any more meaning with employers or universities inside California than it does with them outside the state.

In or out of California, these degrees have no meaning academically. So why bother making a distinction where none exists? (Or has been proven to exist?)

 

Re: Re: California equal to accredited?

That is FALSUS IN UNO, FALSUS IN OMNIBUS

 

Hi Jake,

For someone who just recently came out of the woodwork you have caught up with me on posts. You must have stored up a lot of thoughts in the year you mentioned you were a "lurker."

My lack of hostility (recently) comes from not being called names whenever I posted. I commend you for not calling me a "shill" or other such nonsense as you have in previous posts. I don't mind if someone disagrees with me and wants to tear apart my comments but name-calling is really unnecessary, in my opinion.

I have gone to Oregon's site and read the definitions of standard, substandard and degree mill and they are a joke. It consists of 80% this and 20% that ad infinitum as if there are these magic numbers that determine whether or not you are educated. Naturally, the RAs aren't questioned at all no matter how feeble the education.

As an example of how arbitrary these standards are take someone like Steven Spielberg who at age 55 just recently obtained his bachelors degree from UC Long Beach in California. They waived the requirement for the capstone project of a short film to complete his degree and most of his degree studies were done by writing term papers, not taking exams. Putting aside that the college that gave him the degree is accredited (which means Oregon will not challenge the degree no matter how little work he put into it) under Oregon's rules if more than 20% of the degree was based on life experience it qualifies as a substandard degree. If over 50% of the degree was based on life experience, it is by definition a degree mill. These definitions would simply not work in this case.

I think there are numerous people who through many years of experience in their respective fields would qualify for easily 40-50% or more of a bachelors degree in that field. Spielberg probably qualified for over 80%. Yet Oregon says the most anyone can have is 20% no matter how talented, the other 80% must be earned taking college courses. This works for the colleges since they get that much more tuition but is it fair and reasonable?

 

Re: California equal to accredited?

Alan,

You are not "vox oregonus" for all Oregonians.

Why do states have the power to allow educational institutions to confer degrees if no one takes it seriously? Is that power meaningless?

 

Russ

The biggest problem with your posts is they produce SO MUCH misinformation. In your above post you give the impression that Oregon is somehow preventing people from gaining legitimate credit for their life experience. That, like a lot of your points, is quite the opposite of the truth. Their are numerous ACCREDITED schools that will accept up ro 80% of the degree's credit from non-traditional methods as long as it is documented and equivilent. In addition, at least three ACCREDITED schools will allow up to 100% if it is documented and equivilent.

UNACCREDiTED schools are a different subject. The vast majority are frauds and fakes out to decieve people. The majority of these frauds use the life experience story as a scam to confuse potential victums. They don't actually evaluate anyone's experience, they just offer the degree in exchange for cash. Some of the more sophisticated ones even throw in some unproctored quizes or other assignments or requirements to appear legitimate. Like many conmen they are actually quite good at what they do.

Because nearly 100% of these frauds use the life experience scam Oregon and other regulators are strigent on UNACCREDITED schools that claim to use it. A very understandable response considering the actions of the fraudulent schools.

There is another topic we need to broach. We know that the frauds and conmen actively read Degreeinfo. Often someone will point out a mistake or something specific in one of their web pages and nearly as soon as it is posted the web page is changed. Clearly Degreeinfo has become the leading source for information on distance learning, alternative education, and even degree mills.

Taking that in to account, it is interesting when we get people here suggesting accreditation is a waste and that the few legitimate unaccredited schools are being unfairly regulated. They typically can't see the the vast majority of fraudulent unaccredited schools. Is it possible such people are merely misguided and unknowledgable about the field? Certainly. It is hard to believe, however, that many are not actual degree mill operators, employees, or holders of such degrees. It seems even more so when such people withhold any real information about themselfs and take pot-shots at legitimate efforts such as the ODA. Heck some of them even CLAIM to be in OREGON! So perhaps you can understand how unbelievable and shill like most of your posts make you sound.