Proposed legislation to curb diploma mills

"While they portrayed it as far from a panacea, a U.S. Congressman and several supporters unveiled legislation Thursday that aims to make at least some progress on all of those fronts. The bill, sponsored by Reps. Timothy Bishop (D-N.Y.) and Michael Castle (R-Del.), would (1) cement in federal law definitions of "diploma mills" and "accreditation mills" (the unauthorized agencies from which the phony institutions claim to derive their authority to operate), (2) bar federal agencies from using degrees from diploma mills to provide jobs or promotions that depend on candidates' educational credentials, and (3) give the Federal Trade Commission more authority to define and crack down on deceptive practices by dubious institutions."

http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2010/01/29/mills

Some nice quotes by George Gollin as well. A nice "first step" but, unless a definitition for "little or no academic work" can be agreed upon, the law will be tough to enforce.

 

Here is the version in the Chronicle of Higher Ed:

http://chronicle.com/article/New-Bill-in-Congress-Would/63776/?sid=at&utm_source=at&utm_medium=en

 

Here's the text of the bill:

http://www.chea.org/pdf/Diploma%20Mill%20Final%20Draft.pdf

And here are a few of my concerns:

1) The bill doesn't define 'accreditation'. It just launches into defining corruptions of accreditation.

2) On page 2, "Accreditation Mill" is defined as an organization that "offers a form of educational recognition or accreditation" that, (A) doesn't conduct subsequent periodic reviews, (B) publishes a list of accredited schools that includes schools that didn't ask to be included, or (C) isn't recognized by the Secretary of Education or CHEA.

"Offers a form of educational recognition" is much too broad. Many organizations recognize educational institutions for many different reasons. Maybe a program wins an award or something. Professional organizations, funding bodies, state licensing boards, employers and individuals recognize educational programs. USNews does every year. Degreeinfo does.

3) The strategic 'or' tucked in there on line 21 of page 2 makes (A) and (B) superfluous, reducing everything to (C), meaning that any "organization that offers a form of educational recognition or accreditation" that isn't approved by the Secretary of Education or by CHEA has become an "accreditation mill" simply by definition.

What this appears to do is replace educational criteria by political criteria. The American Chemical Society recognizes university chemistry departments but isn't to my knowledge recognized by either the Secretary or by CHEA, so it's become an "accreditation mill" despite its being the national professional organization for chemists. But a single political appointee sitting in Washington DC can make recognition decisions entirely on his own initiative, without even heeding the advice of his staff (it's happened), and that's legally definitive.

4) Page 3, lines 1-9, defines "Degree Granting Institution" as "any entity that offers or confers an academic, professional, or occupational degree, diploma or certificate, if such degree, diploma or certificate may be used to represent to the general public that the individual possessing such degree, diploma or certificate has completed a program of education or training beyond secondary education."

Apparently barbers colleges, beauty, bartending, truck-driving and ESL schools have been redefined as degree granting institutions. That blurs the distinction between higher-education and post-secondary education and appears to tremendously expand the scope of laws governing the former.

5) On page 4, Sec. 3, it states, "No accrediting agency or association may be considered to be a reliable authority as to the quality of education or training offered by a degree-granting institution for any purpose related to immigration, federal employment and hiring practices, or for any other federal purposes, unless the agency or association is a nationally recognized accrediting agency or association recognized by the Secretary of Education pursuant to part H of title IV of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 USC 1099a et seq.)"

Too bad for the FAA which has apparently been legally redefined as an accreditation mill. Flight schools are out of luck and the federal government won't be hiring pilots any longer, at least until the Secretary of Education takes over responsiblity for recognizing them.

6) What about foreign degrees? The British QAA isn't recognized by the United States Secretary of Education. Foreign universities will no longer be recognized for immigration or federal employment purposes? This legislation doesn't seem to take any notice of education outside US borders.

I could go on, but that should be enough to get conversation going.

 

Bill,

Good job identifying the gaps and pointing to some short comings of this proposed legislation. I know its just a portion of issues.

As we see this administration taking power and basically inserts it self to control everything, education is not exception. Wile this area of mills is an issue to be addressed, is it used to push some agenda?

So adding to some paragraphs "or it foreign equivalent" can be helpful.
As to professional organizations that award qualifications even PMI (PMP) or others will become "mills"?

What about new schools that are unaccredited yet?

 

I wouldn't be too sure about the supposed limitations of this legislation. It's hard to write utterly bullet- and water-proof legislation. I suspect this will be enforceable; after all, guilt is in the eye of the beholder (a jury)--a very subjective lot.

 

You hit the nail on the head and it really comes down to the HR departments implementing better screening and assessment measures, rather than look for a government solution by way of regulation.

 

It's about time. Let's hope something constructive comes out of this.

Sincerely,
Dr. Gary Shwinn, P.Hd
Director of Public Relations
University of Antonius

 

The outcome of this legislation would likely not be favorable for the University of Antonius.

 

The P.Hd is too much. It makes me suspect that it is just a troll trying to get some cheap jollies.

 

I don't think that it would survive court challenge in its present form.

Outlawing any member of the public from issuing "a form of educational recognition" without pre-approval to do so from Washington DC is a clear violation of the Constitutional guarantee of free-speech.

I'm certain that judges won't take kindly to a Congressional attempt to forbid their own courts and bar associations from recognizing legal education as they see fit (and in California's case explicitly accrediting law programs). That restriction could be challenged on a whole host of Constitutional grounds.

But Constitutional problems apart, the legislation is still very poorly conceived and will have unintended consequences. It needs to be rewritten and in my opinion should not be passed in its present state.