Oregon school definitions

Your trying brings to mind an old farm boy expression about steers. All they can do is try.

 

Hello Bill, SCUPS like many others unaccredited school operating in Malaysia chose to collaborate with a local corporation (xyz Sdn bhd) regulated by no one and is basically a for profit business entity. These local representative acts as university¡¦s representative who is only seen to be assisting in marketing and recruitment activities and thus escaping the regulation of department of education. But in reality the full program of SCUPS is delivered by these agents who would hire just anyone who can speak well for teaching and provide good textbook to students although books are entirely unrelated to topics covered by lecturers and most important of all monthly teaching sessions are conducted in good hotels providing meals and coffee break. Assessment is based on assignment and off course no one fails. Students enjoy good meals, coffee breaks and fun and at the sane time get their degree¡Kƒº


In conclusion no courses are coming from Santa Ana and it¡¦s a total franchise to local partners. Since printing cost would obviously be much cheaper in Malaysia and therefore SCUPS can save cost by printing degrees locally and further saving with no courier charges.

A genuine University would not associate itself with a corporation in Malaysia but rather would select an approved institution of higher learning from department of education (DOE) of Malaysia. You could see dozens of UK, Australian Twinning programmes in Malaysia that are franchised to local colleges and the reasons for that is that these colleges are regulated by DOE and all courses they offer must be accredited by Malaysian Accreditation Board before an institution can offer these to students in Malaysia.

If SCUPS offers quality courses then they would have chosen a local college in Malaysia and send their courses to Malaysian Accreditation Board and by doing that they would be offering their programmes legally in Malaysia.

Peter Chin

 

[I deleted my response myself to save the moderator the trouble]

 

Oregon's Position on DL Law Schools?

It is interesting that the famous California DL Law Schools, such as Oakbrook and Northwest California, on the list below are not listed by the ODA as illegal in Oregon:

http://www.fatfree.com/law/

Thanks,

Dave

 

Re: Oregon's Position on DL Law Schools?

While I don't know much about the schools mentioned as Law is not my subject, I DO know that Mr. Contreras has repeatedly made statements like "...the list is by no means complete..." and similar statements that the ODA list is a Work In Progress. Let's see what the new format of the list looks like.
As posted earlier in this thread:

 

Because we do not seek out unaccredited schools, many of those in California and elsewhere are not on the list simply because no one has ever brought us a case involving them or called them to our attention by name. We have no research capacity except on a fee-for-service basis or when a case involving an Oregon degree user comes up. In this we differ from John Bear and others who attempt to maintain more complete lists.

There cannot, of course, ever be a complete list. Just today someone contacted us and asked us to add something called Ellington U. to the list as a public service.

 

Ellington U.? Would that be the North Dakota branch of Duke U.?

 

I find this response disingenuous. It is a simple matter to take the list published by CPEC and transpose it to the Oregon list. (I think about 14 seconds.) By default, every CA State Approved degree is illegal in Oregon, except for a few exceptions (e.g. one degree from a school approved, others not). Why doesn't the ODA simply state this fact rather than the official mumbo jumbo it currently publishes giving the impression that only a few schools from CA are unacceptable?

 

I disagree that the general impression is that only a few unaccredited schools from CA are unacceptable. I think it is very clear that all unaccredited schools are assumed to be unacceptable until they're evaluated.

If the case is that schools on the explicitly unacceptable list might be found acceptable if an official evaluation were done on them then that fact is unclear. I think that you might have a fair complaint there. Actually this is another reason that I'm guessing that the ONE school that was officially evaluated by the ODA and found lacking due to their doctorate program actually was CCU. It really seems that a lot of the pieces to the puzzle fit nicely in that case. It would explain why CCU is on that ODA nonwonderful list. It also matches the criticisms of CCU inferior doctorates that have been occasionally discussed in the past.

I find it delightfully ironic to think this might be the case because all the CCU fans that have criticized (viciously in some cases) the ODA for putting CCU on the list and making CCU look bad. The truth of the matter (assuming that it was CCU that failed the evaluation) is that the ODA was really trying to protect the name of CCU by not releasing the fact that they had failed an official evaluation!! Now you must admit that it is a most delightfully ironic situation.

 

Hey, in the vernacular... it ain't gonna fly!! Let's remember, and what I think is really at the core here is... a bachelors from a mainstream university and additional degrees from a CA state approved university trumps a CSU bachelors degree any day of the week. Furthermore, many critics don't have the fortitude or the stamina to attain a California approved degree. And the ODA couldn't tell their grandmother what to do. I find these facts delightfully ironic in response to your stated delightedness.

 

Sorry Kirkland but the only connections that I see between your post and my post was that you quoted my post, your post immediately follows mine, and that you too are delighted by some ironic thing having to do with grandmothers that I really didn't understand. (BTW I'm delighted that you too are delighted and if I understood why, perhaps I could even share in your delight.)

Regarding your post as a stand alone statement, if CSU stands for California State University then I believe that I would have to agree with your general sentiment (except in Oregon and about 5 other states).

Cheers from your still delighted forum amigo,
Bill

 

Oregon is the only state in which it is actually illegal to use a degree from CCU. The other states that have laws regulating the use of degrees from unaccredited schools have wording similar to North Dakota's which allows the use of a degree from an unaccredited school that is an active applicant for USDOE recognized accreditation.

 

CCU degrees will be legal in Oregon when/if CCU achieves accreditation. Although I'd guess that CCU doctorates might still be a problem? Especially if that is the one degree that the ODA officially evaluated and found unacceptable.

 

CCU offered doctorates within several different disciplines: PhD (Engineering, Business), EdD, DBA, PsychD. Which one are you referring to?

 

I was speculating that all CCU doctorates might still be a problem for use in Oregon because even after DETC accreditation the doctorate degrees would still be unaccredited.

 

I doubt it will be of much consequence since they are a legal credential virtually everywhere else. And holders of CCU doctorates are typically established professionals in their fields with a number of skills to offer along with traditional credentials, not reliant on a single degree. And in time, DETCs charter is likely to include that level of recognition. Let's remember that all schools are unaccredited at some point in their history. Harvard was unaccredited for 300 years. Think big, be positive, look to the future.

 

I do applaud you for likening Harvard to CCU. I can go along with that, perhaps it will also take 300 years for CCU to become accredited?

 

Hold the applause. Another reading should indicate to you that there was no simile between CCU and Harvard other than all schools are unaccredited at some time. Anything else is tortured logic.

Anyway, the issue that was posed earlier (which Bill interrupted) was that the ODA could easily and confidently add the approx. 254 CA state approved schools for inclusion in their list rather than listing the few that it does. The fact that they don't I think speaks highly of the ODAs list and process dysfunction. What about that Alan...the database is there, open and waiting for you to jump on, go for it!

 

Thanks for an additional opportunity to revel in the delightful irony. In the ODA's existence, it has evaluated one school as unfavorable. It would make a lot of sense that CCU was that one school because it would explain why it was on the unacceptable list. The other approximately 252 CA approved schools (except PWU which they list as a diploma mill CA approved school) have not been evaluated. So here you are calling the ODA dysfunctional because they have put your alma mater on the list. Yet the ODA is protecting CCU (assuming that CCU is the one school that has failed an official evaluation) by not publicly mentioning that CCU failed the evaluation. Now can you see the delightful irony in this situation?

Don't you see that I didn't interrupt anything? I'm talking about the same thing!

P.S. Do you disagree that PWU is a diploma mill? Do you think that the ODA (or anyone) should accept PWU degrees as bona fide? Did you know that PWU is CA state approved? Wouldn't you agree that having PWU as a CA state approved school tarnishes the reputation of all CA state approved schools? How can the general public tell the difference between a PWU and a CCU, they're both CA state approved? Don't you think that your righteous indignation would be better targetted at PWU, the BPPVE, and CCU (for not going for accreditation sooner) rather than the ODA? If CCU were the one school that officially failed the evaluation then would you admit that you were wrong about the ODA? (Note that this last question would be a test of your objectivity, IMHO.)