Oregon school definitions

Hi. My view is that the current list and classification system does more harm than good; it attempts to tackle both issues of validity and legality of unaccredited degrees. For example, the list seems hopelessly inaccurate with respect to classifying schools, as I pointed out recently in a thread about California Pacific University being classified inaccurately. If indeed the goal is to enforce Oregon law for Oregonians, then the list might be most powerful if it would simply list the schools offering degrees that can be legally used in Oregon. To attempt to classify schools that are "illegal" seems like a nearly impossible task, while listing the "legal" schools is simple. Of course, you could list schools that are known to be "illegal" without trying to comment on pedigree.

Dave

 

Thanks for the continuing discussion on these issues. We are always willing to have a dialogue with people who give us the benefit of the doubt as to our intentions.

For now, we're going to pull the classification column until we can get some direction from the Commissioners. We will be adding background data links on certain suppliers as it becomes available. That has already been done for a few suppliers.

The problem with relying on external evaluators for foreign degrees is twofold.

1. They may use standards lower than those required by Oregon law, and

2. There are sometimes fluke situations. For example, for a while there was one NACES member that accepted Berne degrees while all the rest did not. It would be irrational to automatically have to accept the opinion of the odd one out under such circumstances.

 

The commissioners have actually written into the regulations that we are allowed to rely on an evaluation by AACRAO if we choose to do that. AACRAO is not a NACES member but provides similar services and issues publications on international degree validation. It is the only external evaluator mentioned by name in the rules.

In practice, we sometimes confer with AACRAO and a couple of NACES evaluators on complex cases (for example an odd Italian degree supplier that seemed to be a branch of the University of Wales but also seemed not to be). We also confer as needed with education evaluators in the UK, Canada, Sweden and Australia, with rare contacts elsewhere.

The legal responsibility for ODA decisions rests with me as administrator (I report directly to the commissioners by statute), so in theory I need to sign off on all evaluations, even if I am not the one who does them.

The idea of developing a list of evaluators who meet certain standards is a good one. The baseline standards for what separates a "school" from a "supplier" are not that complex, with very few entities falling into a gray area.

For example, two of the standards we use for foreign schools automatically screen out a lot of bogus providers:

1. All degrees issued by a school must be valid for use inside the host country that authorizes the issuance of the degrees.

2. The school must be authorized to issue degrees by the same authority that authorizes domestic public or private colleges to issue degrees.

My guess is that most foreign degree evaluators would have no problem signing on to such standards.

 

Mr. Contreras,

A recurring theme here is your saying (and rightly so... don't getme wrong) in one way or another that your hands are tied by statute and that you're just doing what the law requires of you even if you don't necessarily agree with it. Having authored a statute or two in my career, and knowing intimately what it's like to go through all the the committee hearings and to testify and compromise and change things and all that kinda' stuff, I'm unafraid to investigate those possibilities and it occurs to me that maybe the only way to make Oregon's approach make more sense -- that is, if that's even necessary (and I'm not saying it is) -- is to simply change the law.

Could you please provide links here to all statutes, rules, regulations, and committee or board members on the State of Oregon web site which contain the precise language of the law which actuates your office, as well as any explanations and/or interpretations thereof, as well as the people empowered by the state to enforce it?

Thanks!

P.S. Great interview over at the Chronicle web site! Sadly, it really only scratched the surface (as such chat interviews usually do), but that wasn't your fault. There was, after all, a time constraint. But you done good! Thank you for that contribution and your good work.

 

==

Could you give more details including the names of the school/accreditor?

 

Hello Allan, I am from Malaysia and work in private institution of higher learning. As I understand the listing ODA has compiled is mainly for use in state of Oregon, however, the listing is being used in this part of the world by various schools to their advantage. A good example is SCUPS who are not offering a PhD program in Psychology here in Malaysia but mainly offering BBA and MBA programs via seminars but their agents in Malaysia repeatedly making reference to ODA approval as recognized university to lure students. In reality SCUPS MBA program is no different than another 27 or more unaccredited MBA programs being in offering in Malaysia.

I personally think that classification is not needed since there diploma mills are growing day by day and you would not be able to list all of them and specially those mills operating from outside USA. It would be better to list all unaccredited schools as illegal rather than having a classification of D, U, and etc.

How do you evaluate a foreign institution? I feel that just approving them on the basis of documentation my not be sufficient and an actual visit to their schools and meeting n with the faculty and management might get you a better idea on their actual operation. The problem is that these unaccredited schools paint a good picture on surface but when you look into the details then you might find the opposite.

Peter Chin

 

Hi, Bill;
Actually, I was hoping someone would follow up with more information, not more questions
<Personal info, I'm a bi-vocational IFB Minister>
Several versions of this story have made the rounds for the last few years. Another one is that Liberty University, founded by Jerry Falwell himself, has "gone downhill" in the decade or so since it has become Regionally Accredited. One rumor is that the current head of Liberty is not even Baptist.
My objective in that post was to find out if there is any underlying truth or corroboration to what may in fact turn out to be an urban myth.
Religious schools use such issues as a rationale to not seek accreditation.

 

===

Jerryclick:

I would imagine that the story that a Baptist school was actually of a quality and of a disposition to be genuinely accredited , but then opted not to be accredited because the accreditor would require courses on "dancing" reeks of mythology.

Even Bob Jones University, I understand, is planning to get accreditation from the theologically conservative TRACS. If that is true, then for deficit and deceitful theological schools nearly the last wrongly employed and fantastically absurd example to argue that....

"We, too are good just like BJU, and could be accredited just like BJU , but we don't want to be accredited because we'd have to stop being good "

....will be removed from the repertoire of irresponsible excuses oft employed by dishonest dispensers of substandard theological
education.


BTW, Kudos to you for being a bivocational churchman like my hero St. Paul.

 

Requested links:

Oregon statute 348.609: http://www.leg.state.or.us/ors/. Only the legislature can change the statute.

Oregon rules, under regulations in left sidebar, click 583-050: http://www.osac.state.or.us/oda/. The commission can change the rules as long as they stay within the statute. Note that the rule postings on the web by the Sec of State can run up to six weeks behind the actual filing date, though I think ours are current.

There is always chatter that Oregon ought to "change its law." OK, what should we change? I can't believe that any serious-minded person would suggest that we automatically accept all state-approved degrees - we all know what some of them are like.

We already have authority to enter into interstate agreements regarding degree acceptability (I recently had half a dozen bites on that idea from other states), it is just a question of working out the details, which takes time.

We'd be very interested in knowing whether anyone has a concern about our classifying opaque offshore suppliers such as Rushmore U. and Washington International U. as invalid for use here. We think that if we can't figure out who and where the owners are, what the curriculum really is and who and where the faculty are, it's a de facto carp unless it wants to reveal itself.

Other ideas?

 

I would hope one of these states is your southern neighbor.

 

I would hope one of these states is your southern neighbor.

 

California has some real stinky schools that have California state approval. Look at PWU as an example and a bad pun on stinky. Oregon would be crazy to enter any agreement that had to accept the likes of PWU.

 

If I have time I will draft an outline of standards for an interstate agreement and share the draft with the DegreeInfo swarm for comments before it gets shopped to my colleagues. My guess is that there will be wheels rolling by September, with some functionality in place by next spring.

In terms of subject matter, the baseline standards would probably include these:

1. adequate faculty qualifications
2. something on student-faculty ratio (2000-1 is probably too high)
3. limits on life experience credit (any ideas?)
4. policies on the award of credit (how much work per credit)
5. admissions/student preparation (no PhDs to high school dropouts)
6. appropriate oversight of curriculum (no physics degrees for theology work - or vice versa)

Anything obvious missing?

 

What about schools that list faculty that they only use here and there?

Again, what if the ratio is lower, but the faculty if rarely used on a part time basis? What if the school has no full time faculty?

Rather than having a limit on experience credit which schools will try to work around, it should be more important how the experience is evaluated and assessed. If schools are giving credit for a resume or application with no evaluation, verification or assessment then what does it really matter if it is 50% or less. That 49% credit should not be given just for sending in the money.

Again, it should be about meeting the competency per an evaluation. If a school can show that experience is evaluated and that the learning has taken place then the credit should be given for that subject.

There should be minimum standards set for each degree level.

I suggest that you be more specific about requirements. Some schools will find ways to make it look like they meet the requirements

 

I agree with you, and I'm sorry if my earlier posting made it sound like I think the whole thing is just a crock and needs to be changed. The fact is, for whatever reason, this subject has really captured my attention and I'm spending a lot of time (when I have time) thinking about it and refining my position and trying to figure out what's good and bad and right and wrong about it. And, in fact, I have some other things I've since thought of that I'd like to add to this thread -- or, at the very least, share with Mr. Contreras -- but which I'm having trouble finding the time to do right now. In any case, while I am an admitted questioner of the precise logistics of it at this point, I cannot even begin to tell you how much I like the idea of what Oregon is trying to do and, more specifically, how appropriate it is the Mr. Contreras -- with his notions of how it all should work and his sensibilities as I have been able to ascertain them though his writings and testimony here and elsewhere -- is the one who's doing it. So I hope my earlier posting didn't come across wrong. I didn't mean it to, and I'm sorry if it did.


By they way, as long as I have the floor for a second...

I received an email message over the weekend from a gentlemen whose identity I will not reveal (nor will I provide enough information that it can be deduced) who felt very strongly that Kennedy-Western University (KWU) students were being unfairly maligned, and that their KWU degrees devalued in the marketplace, by Mr. Contreras and his efforts on behalf of the State of Oregon; and he (the author of the aforementioned weekend email) misinterpreted my statements/questions in this thread such that he believed that I would be willing to become an advocate for or to even represent the interests of the group of organized KWU students and/or graduates of which he claimed to be a part.

Please allow me to make one thing painfully clear, right here and now: I am no diploma "mill shill," as they have come to be called in these forums. My inquiries in this thread and in other places where I have questioned mostly the criminalization of unaccredited degrees by states such as Oregon is in largest measure a civil rights issue with me. I am deeply troubled by the actuality of the criminalization part of it for reasons that have more to do with constitutional provisions of notice, as well as ensuring that by the very nature of Oregon's method of enforcement it is backing potential defendants into a corner of having to defend the validity of their degrees (and in so doing, making statements against self-interest in a potential criminal matter) while having the spectre of criminal prosecution held over their heads if they cannot. Oregon, in my opinion, is approaching the whole thing backwards from a constitutional rights standpoint; and in a way which flies in the face of a defendant's right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty, among other things. It's very disturbing, and every time I let myself think about it (while driving in the car or at other times when I let my thoughts go there) I'm coming-up with more and more examples of how this whole thing could backfire in Oregon's face in a huge and terrible way that, sadly, will have the effect of discrediting its worthy intentions if it does not turn around its approach.

All that having been said, let there be no ambiguity about this: I am four-square in Oregon's corner regarding its overall intention to discredit and rid the world of "institutions" -- like KWU and others -- which either offer credentials for a fee with little or no study; or which require some study, but which study is so lacking in rigor that it's almost laughable and is, therefore, not worthy of even being considered "college" coursework. I am merely questioning the specific logistics of the way Oregon is doing it because as I refine my thinking on it I more strongly believe each day that the ODA was mislead by its legal counsel as to ability of Oregon's statutues to withstand constitutional scrutiny. (And I can expand on that in this thread -- more so than I already have earlier, herein -- if anyone would like to read about that.)

Nefarious operations which any moron can clearly see are diploma mills are bad; but so called "institutions" like KWU which are harder to categorize (at least from initial appearances), and which engage in outright deception, manipulation of facts and appearances, intentionally fraudulent (or, at the very least, pseudo-fraudulent) business practices and which capitalize (ne, prey) on the ignorance and desperation of those in need of a college credential so they can improve their lot in life (and willing to pay dearly for what they perceive as a shortcut to it such as what KWU offers) are dangerous and are a consumer menace. In my opinion, the Oregon ODA has gone far too easy on KWU and has given it too much benefit of the doubt. KWU should be shut down, plain and simple, and I am stunned that the attorneys general of two states in which KWU does business have not done so.

Moreover, after my cursory research of it and my deepeneed understanding about precisely how KWU does things; and after learning what KWU students have been known to say to one another about it in forums and other places, it seems impossible (at best) and improbable (at least) that any KWU "student" or "graduate" (and I use both terms loosely) could possibly be unaware that their education was a joke. If so, then it is difficult to defend any KWU student who proffers his or her KWU credential with a straight face, and to not think of him or her as being just as nefarious as KWU itself. Looked at from that perspective, it is easy to understand why Oregon and other states want to criminalize the use of "credentials" from places such as KWU and the many others of its ilk.

There. That should pretty much stop my getting any future, whining, "can you please help us" emails from clearly mislead and/or misguided KWU students and/or graduates, don't you think?

 

For the record it wasn't me that emailed Greg!