Discussion in 'General Distance Learning Discussions' started by dlkereluk, Jan 8, 2006.
AdAstra, how is your learning experience in the LLB program with Charles Darwin University?
Even if that person doesn't have one?
D-uh. Feel better?
At the risk of hijacking this thread....studying through CDU has been good for me:
- small classes (try finding a law tutorial class at any Aust. uni which has only 5 - 10 students).
- experienced, practicing solicitors and barristers delivering lectures or running tutorials;
- highly responsive administrative staff, including those at the bookshop;
- relatively low fees;
- all tutorials are delivered live via VoiceCafe software; so plenty of interaction and discussion among students.
- all lectures recorded in on-campus classes and usually available for download within 24 hours ;
- access to a range of online databases for research e.g. LexiNexis and others;
- plenty of online learning resources to support each course; I rarely felt the need to go to a local uni library to supplement my reading;
- course coordinator very accessible, even to the point of being given his phone number; other lecturers are also making efforts to be reachable even though they are mostly working full-time in private practice.
- The main downside is that essay feedback can take long while in some instances.
- very student and service delivery focussed. They try damn hard to make life easier for the distance student. Since DL law students make up the bulk of their law school enrolment, we are very visible and definitely don't play second fiddle to the on-campus crowd.
It's been a good experience so far, and should get better since we were suffering from a staff shortage last year, which has been rectified this year. So I'm looking forward to less stressed lecturers
Any degree from CPU after July 25, 1997 is not approved and therefore not legal. The owners seemed to believe they had a good appeal case and therefore remained open in defiance of the order to close. They did go to appeals court and lost the appeal in late 2000. California makes it very clear that any CPU degree prior to that date is legal and valid. But of course, there is the baggage factor.
Attorney Asher Rubin's own philosophy of education, in his own words, can be found here:
Attorney Asher Rubin's statements about CPU were rhetorical, made to influence his case and influence public opinion. The 1997 administrative judge's ruling upheld the Council decision that CPU did not meet the new regulations. There was no such rhetoric. None of court rulings (including the appeals court, 2000) reflect Rubin's rhetoric.
The appeal court judges' ruling backs up the administrative judge's ruling, and another ruling from Judge Lynne Druryee (1997) telling CPU to close. The rulings reflect that CPU did not meet the requirements of the changed regulations for approval. These regulations were voted in in 1989 but were not rigorously applied in reapproval processes until the mid 1990's.
As it happens, I was a spectator (along with the then-Chancellor of Capella) in the Marin County courthouse when Attorney Asher Rubin was supposed to make the state's case against CPU. He was so unprepared, and so inarticulate (my opinion), the judge gave him the most severe dressing-down I've ever heard, for his totally inappropriate behavior, invective, inappropriate publicity attempts, and so on. He sputtered a lot, then profusely apologized, and asked for an extension so he could be better prepared, which the judge (clearly reluctantly) granted.
I still remember your comments on alt.ed.distance after you got back from the court. I mightr even have them somewhere as I am a compulsive collector of paper.
Regardless of the ad-hominem invective that's thrown at Mr. Rubin here on Degreeinfo, the court did find in the state's favor and that ruling was subsequently upheld on appeal.
Bill is indeed correct. Bottom line is that CPU did not meet the changing regulations and was failed in its reapproval request. It defied the ruling to close and launced an appeal and that appeal failed. Everything else, including Rubin's antics were/is a sideshow.
The CPU Board of Alumni Governors, elected last year, have now taken possession of anything previously owned by CPU. The Board is administrating the issuing transcripts and has filed for IRS status as a nonprofit corporation with an immediate community of about 8000 graduates that it serves.
An interesting point. California requires that there be a records officer issuing transcripts for at least 50 years following the closing of the school.
"Please don't take this politician's statement as prima facie evidence that CPU was a diploma mill."
I agree. My point is merely to point out the confusion that seems to exist regarding CPU. And silly heroic stance taken by the state in closing down this "diploma mill that has been preying on California consumers for too many years" is laughable. They were the ones that authorized /approved this for all those years if indeed that is the case.
How true, FWD. For years, the government even described CPU's operation and curriculum and student achievements as comparable to accredited unbiversities in the USA.
However, before 1996 there was no confusion about CPU.
There is no doubt that there was political motivation in the closing of CPU (and possibly other approved schools). The governor, shortly after the closing, closed down the same agency that attacked the school, charging the agency with waging a vendetta against approved schools. The agency re-emerged under a different name under consumer affairs.
A large medical center where I worked at the time paid for all costs for my CPU MS and PhD and recognized the degrees. Because CPU wasn't accredited I had to meet with the HR Director with documentation and approval was then given.
Old thread, new question. Why does ODA consider it an "S" school then?
S = An unaccredited U.S. entity that has the legal authority to issue degrees from a U.S. state or territorial government that has a legal structure in place to authorize the establishment of colleges whose degrees are valid for use in the licensing jurisdiction, but which has not demonstrated that its degrees meet Oregon standards.
We floated the question out to a couple hundred hr directors, attorneys, and internal auditors. I'm not aware of your research. so the specific question we asked may differ considerably.
Separate names with a comma.