Oregon starts labelling "diploma mills"

The Oregon Office of Degree Authorization has now labelled many of the institutions on its Unaccredited list "diploma mill".
http://www.osac.state.or.us/oda/unaccredited.html

It cautions, "Some unlabeled entities not investigated by ODA may be diploma mills."

Some entries surprisingly labelled "diploma mill":
Columbia Pacific University
Fairfax University
Greenwich University
Knightsbridge University

Some entries surprisingly not labelled "diploma mill":
American World University
Breyer State University
Northwestern International University, Ltd.
Shelbourne University
Shepperton University

 

twice twice

I notice that Saint Regis University has received the label "Diploma mill. Diploma mill" (repetition for the sake of emphasis?)

G

 

This is ridiculous. I don't know much about the other schools listed, but I've posted quite a few comments about Knightsbridge, and not a single one was complimentary.

However, I have reason to believe that Knightsbridge does offer some type of educational process (even though I suspect that this process does not meet generally recognized standards.)

But there are hundreds or thousands of diploma mills that offer no educational process -- they just offer a degree for a credit card--and they are not listed.

As I have said before, "the ODA list" is fatally flawed. It can never list all degree/diploma mills, and scamsters will use this fact to their advantage (i.e., we're not on the ODA list, so obviously we are not a degree mill like these other schools.) The fact that ODA is now specifically listing some schools as diploma mills only magnifies this flaw.

 

Re: twice twice

And this provides a fine opportunity for St. Regis to sue the State of Oregon, Alan Contreras, and anyone else they might like.

Provided, of course, that they can prove that they are not a diploma mill. Should be fairly easy to do, I would imagine.




Tom Nixon

 

I get a kick out of the excitement that seems to be produced by ODA's most amusing list.

It is implied that if the institution in the list is labeled a "diploma mill" then the ODA has investigated the institution, at least to some degree.

I would assume that the ODA has done some research and if they've listed something as a diploma mill then they have good reason to believe that they are a diploma mill. Actually in a libel case brought by an institution against the ODA, my understanding is that the ODA would have to first prove their statement to be true. The institution would not have to prove that they were not a diploma mill to win the case. The ODA is kind enough to provide their definition of a diploma mill.

The first sentence in the ODA definition would seem to make the proof fairly simple as long as the institution is unaccredited.

 

Re: Re: Oregon starts labelling "diploma mills"

The key is not whether or not the institution offers some type of educational process. The key is whether or not they will sell diplomas while requiring very little to no educational process. We mustn't lose sight that a diploma mill is essentially a con game and the key to any con is telling the victim what they want to hear. If the victim wants to hear that an educational process is required then there's an excellent chance that the victim will be told that one is required.

Take a hypothetical example, if the victim claims that they already have a worthless diploma from some other painfully obvious degree mill like say Trinity College & University and then further state that they worked hard for their worthless Ph.D. already and would just like a different diploma mill to bless this already completed great work then the second diploma mill would likely quickly agree and take the person's money and laugh all the way to the bank. When asked who reviewed the great work the second degree mill might even quickly change the title of the degree to better match an available expert in a slightly different field. The victim then might even feel more honored that his degree was "upgraded" without the victim even asking for an upgrade. Now you might say that no one could ever be so stupid as to fall for such a transparent scam. In which case I would have to reluctantly disagree with you.

 

But the label "diploma mill" isn't applied that way. It isn't applied to all unaccredited schools, just some of them. Why? What are the criteria? Why some schools and not others? No one knows. It isn't published, nor is it discernable from the list.

Why some California-approved schools and not others?

The ODA continues to be utterly irresponsible in what should be a noble effort.

 

The ODA list doesn't make sense. Some of these "diploma mills" actually demand coursework from their students in order to graduate. Others not listed as "diploma mills" only rely on a resume or a short essay as graduation requirements. The list would make more sense if they (ODA) would separate the "unaccredited schools" from the "diploma mills".

 

> In the case of Knightsbridge, the school contacted us nine
> months ago and we asked them to provide evidence in writing
> that they have the same legal authority to issue degrees as do
> other schools in the nation in which they are located, and that
> this authority meets the legal standard required in Oregon.
> They have not provided that evidence.

Therefore it can safely be labelled a "diploma mill" as defined above?

> In the case of Greenwich, the State of California, where they
> were most recently detected, informed us that the entity has
> no approval there as a degree granter.

Therefore it can safely be labelled a "diploma mill" as defined above?

Mr Contreras, are you saying that any school that is not (or has ceased to be) state-licensed is ipso facto a diploma mill, regardless of why it is not state-licensed? If a militant Islamic group comes to power in a state, and revokes the licences of all the state's universities because it thinks their teachings conflict with Islam, do those universities suddenly become "diploma mills"?

 

I have received two communications from Alan Contreras today.
The implications of what he says is clearly that - "All DL schools are guilty until they prove to him that they are innocent".
The list is seriously flawed in many ways and does not stand up to scrutiny of any sort. It is also anti-American, anti-education, anti-Oregon, anti-tourism, anti-democracy, and is totally void of any logic. And whilst the list may be finacially supported by a number of RA schools it has still cost the Oregon tax payers' millions!
I plan to lay a formal complaint about the Oregon list with the US Ambassador in Wellington and with the Governor of Oregon.
Dr Anatidae (Knightsbridge)

 

source of your data?

Do you have any data to support your speculation that "the list may be financially supported by a number of RA schools..."?

Could you publish your data which causes you to conclude that the list "cost the Oregon taxpayers millions" please? ODA does more than create the list, so it is not the case that their entire budget can be used to derive the expense of writing the list in a simple fashion.

Thanks-

G

 

If one looks at the quite extensive back-up information on the ODA website it is very easy to see where huge amounts of Oregon taxpayers' funds have been wasted. And to achieve what?
Had the list compiler stuck to the hundreds of very real degree mills the list may have had some value. Instead the compiler decided that unaccredited = degree/diploma mill. As I said earlier - guilty until proven otherwise.
Anyhow from what I hear Alan Contreras is getting some real stick from all quarters - and he ain't seen nothing yet!
Dr Anatidae (Knightsbridge)

 

One Taz Payer's Approval

Hmmm,

I think it is very unlikely that "it has cost millions". Thousands perhaps. As to Oregon Taxpayer's response, at this point we have one data point. Me. I think Alan is doing valuable work in an effective and efficient way. Care to way in on the issue Bill?

At some point I think we will see the Federal government crack down on degree mills like it has in the past. In the mean time, Oregon is doing a fine job letting people know that unaccredited degrees without substantial work are a fraud.

Keep up the great work Alan!

 

can we stick to the facts here?

Dr. A:

Earlier you made a quantitative statement in reference to the expense of generating the list: "cost the Oregon tax payers' millions!"

You also expressed a suspicion that the content of the ODA list depends, in part, on a flow of ...cash? from RA schools: "list may be finacially supported by a number of RA schools."

You say you "plan to lay a formal complaint about the Oregon list with the US Ambassador in Wellington and with the Governor of Oregon" based, in part, on these unsupported views.

Could you please show us your calculation of the cost of the list? A useful exercise would be for you to compute the budget required by ODA to attend to all of its other obligations while setting aside work on the list.

Which RA universities do you suspect of influencing the ODA list through their "financial support?" How did you come to identify these particular schools as participants?

Do have a way to verify the accuracy of the information on which you base your conclusions?

G

 

Re: can we stick to the facts here?

And given the fact that you have repeatedly showed a profound lack of understanding of statistics, I have to ask the same about the accuracy of the data in your dissertation.

 

Re: Re: can we stick to the facts here?

What? Your post made no sense to me, Jeff? Weren't we discussing the baseless statements made by Dr. Hayes?

 

Re: Re: Re: can we stick to the facts here?

Sorry about that. My post was directed toward Dr. Hayes.

 

Very sad to see Jeff joining 'the gang'.
You don't have to have half a brain to know that the ODA has spent millions dreaming up ficticious lists.
'The gang' needs to do a little research to determine the costs involved in running such a bureaucractic operation, and how tax payers' money is expended on projects that do not create anything at all and are off no value to the community. In this instance the ODA list is - anti-society, anti-the Constitution, anti-tourism, anti-American, anti-DL education, and totally meaningless.
"The gang" should all be forced to view copies of the UK "YES MINISTER" TV programmes if you wish to see how bureaucrats operate.
If you need further 'educating' I'm sure Mark Israel will be only too
pleased to report on what the Maori TV has cost the NZ tax payers'.
Costs relating to the ODA operation can be easily extracted from the State of Oregon's annual financial returns.
Dr Anatidae (Knightsbridge)