RA + specialized/professional accrediation in professional fields is a must!

Re: Re: Re: RA + specialized/professional accrediation in professional fields is a must!

I think it's time, Lerner, that you stopped calling regional accreditation -- either directly or indirectly, and no matter the circumstances -- something akin to a "mill." I fear that newbies will be misled.

The word "mill" has an unambiguous meaning, and there are no circumstances -- none -- under which a regionally-accredited credential may be considered something from a "mill." Ever. Not even close. You're misusing the word mill... hopefully not on purpose. Hopefully it's not so you can point, in other fora, to this thread at DegreeInfo where you feel like you've gotten away with calling regionally-accredited degrees millish, with impunity. Your impunity on that score stops, right here, right now.

What you mean is that for purposes of use as a professional credential, many regionally-accredited degrees which are not also accredited by the appropriate specialized/professional accreditor (like, for example ABET for engineers, as you point out) may be substandard. Not a "mill" credential; but, rather, merely "substandard"... and even then, only for professional usage purposes in some cases. An engineering degree that's regionally-accredited, but not also ABET accredited, is by not stretch of the imagination inherently substandard. If it could be considered substandard, it's only in the face of ABET accreditation when same is required. And that's the operative phrase: "...when same is required."

When an ABET accreditation is not required of an engineering degree in a given employment circumstance, then a regionally-accredited engineering degree would still be rigorous and legitimate and by no stretch of the imagination "millish"!

Even when ABET accreditation is required, a regionally-accredited engineering degree would still be rigorous and legitimate and by no stretch of the imagination "millish"! It would, under those circumstances, simply be inadequate for that specific purpose on account of the ABET accreditation requirement.

Such a circumstance would not make regional accreditation millish, and you must stop saying here that it would. If it makes it "substandard," then fine... use that word if you want. But stop calling regional accreditation, under any circumstances, millish. Stop it. Please.

 

OK, point well taken not millish but of different standard and possibly sub standard.

Gregg for example in small country Israel graduates of Tel Aviv University in Electrical and Electronics Engineering could not get registered in engineers Registry as Engineers wile graduates of Technion had no problem, it took TAU many years of adjusting the degree program to expected standard.
The graduates still enjoyed the status of Academy but not Engineer that severely limited their employment possibilities.

When I state standard, there is a nationally set standard for professional and specialty degree.
The employers and state, licensing boards etc expect that the standard that is not static but evolving based on many factors in the academic, professional and market place is upheld.
So not milled or millish but of a standard that was not validated i.e. "professionally unaccredited".

Degree is regionally accredited and professionally unaccredited.

How would you call a degree that is limiiting persons employment posibilities and transferablity to other degree programs?
I guess DETC fals in such category and I will never call DETC degrees milled, so I may be used Milllish unjustly but what would be a better word?

A few states have no certification process for professionally accredited degrees. A few other states allow candidates who are not graduates of an PA accredited program to sit for their examination. People before enrolling, please check with the licensing or certifying authority in your state to verify the requirements for eligiblity

 

And this is what William Foster, Earl Browder, Gus Hall, Angela Davis, Linda Jenness, Jarvis Tyner, and Andrew Pulley wanted for America!

 

I have a little trouble imagining Gus Hall playing video games.

 

vocabulary help?

Lerner:
Instead of "millish" for RA-but-not-PA you might try--
limited utility
not completely credentialed when PA is required
partially credentialed
less than industry standard
maybe even substandard (if that's really the case).

 

Gulopoly. A jail on Ukraine is worth one million Lubyankas. A prison on Ukraine is ten million starvations. Do not stop on grow, do not pass Duranty and so on.

 

Re: Re: RA + specialized/professional accrediation in professional fields is a must!

I think that's Lerner/Rector's point.

He's trying to argue that RA is substandard. Since RA is substandard, then Degreeinfo is full of brown anal extrusions if it criticizes unaccredited DL schools. They are no worse than RA, really.

He's making another in the seemingly endless attempts to to collapse the accredited/unacccredited distinction by trying to argue that institutional accreditation is consistent with degree mills.

 

Thread in search of a problem

In theory, an RA degree that lacked appropriate PA could be substandard relative to one that did have such PA. And I would certainly encourage any students interested in a professional degree to check up on professional accreditation issues.

But in practice, is this really a problem? Are there many RA schools that fail to get appropriate PA? Are there lots of graduates that are shocked to discover the limitations of their RA, but non-PA, degrees?

In engineering, this issue strikes me as either very rare or non-existent. I simply don't know of any RA, non-ABET/EAC engineering BS programs (as opposed to "engineering technology" programs). The only exception might be brand-new programs that are still in the ABET/EAC candidacy phase.

Granted, there are probably "engineering technology" BS programs at RA schools that are not ABET/TAC accredited. But engineering technicians and technologists are not state-licensed in the US, and in practice, the degree requirements are relatively flexible. In this case, ABET/TAC accreditation is probably a plus, but the lack of such accreditation would probably not be a major career handicap.

And granted, there are definitely "computer science" BS programs at RA schools that are not ABET/CAC accredited. This would include some of the finest computer science programs in the world, such as Stanford, CMU, and the entire Ivy League. But in this field, there is little recognition of ABET/CAC accreditation, and so the lack of PA is no career handicap at all.

Possibly "RA but not PA" degrees are a concern in other fields, but I've never heard of this problem in engineering. Does anyone have an actual example of an RA, non-ABET/EAC engineering program? (remember, "technology" programs don't count).

 

Brilliant posts, guys. Thank you.

 

Again,

I must say that accreditation is important for both RA and PA. I would honestly think that a respectable RA school degree would be respected in most cases except for licensing. I would think in the case of engineering some states would still allow that degree for Professional Engineering registration.

The programme could only be considered sub-standard, if after reviewing the courses its found to be such. This is why I say the PA would give you instant recognition but always garantee best quality.

 

Re: Re: Re: RA + specialized/professional accrediation in professional fields is a must!

This is a distortion of what I argue, or what argue well respected RA and PA colleges and universities.
I have no desire to discredit RA degrees but professionally they are of unknown standard if they are not accredited by the corresponding professional agency.
Institutional accreditation is not sufficient this is one of the reasons why Professional and Specialty accreditation exist

As far as employers in USA well some still don't care if degree is accredited. Some require accredited degree and some require RA +PA accredited degree.
This is not only for licensing.

Mr BillDayson why universities invest in Professional Accreditation they can keep RA only, your logic has many flaus because its motivated to digrade me and my message.

My message adds value to Degreeinfo by making potential students more informed.


Learner

 

j'accuse

Not really. It's overwrought, overstated, overgeneralised, and underdocumented.

You repeatedly trash regional accreditation immedaitely after saying you don't. "Unknown standard" governs your rhetoric, not regional accreditation. Regional accreditation is anything but an unknown standard. You do everyone a disservice for saying so--especially newcomers to this board.

It is a simple untruth. It cannot be a mere mistake. You have loitered here, abusing the goodwill of other posters, far too long for you to claim simple ignorance or innocent misunderstanding. Bill Dayson has your number. Sayonara to your credibility.

How dare you, for the umpteenth time, assault the motivation of anybody who disagrees with you (Dayson, in this instance)?

Apparently you dare because you believe you are permitted, for reasons utterly opaque to me, to get away with it.

When anyone calls you on your contrived lack of clarity, you go for ad hominem attacks, if not here, then elsewhere (but usually here).

As Attorney Welch said to Senator McCarthy, "Have you no shame, sir? At long last, have you no shame?"

Nothing in your credentials is really clear. Nothing in your argumentation is really logical. Nothing in any thread of yours that I can recall is designed to enlighten, but only to obfuscate. Nothing you say for which you are called to account is anything but overblown, and whenever you are called to account you whine and cringe as if to play the victim.

How can I impute this to design rather than accident or incompetence? How dare I claim to know motive after denouncing you for claiming to know motive?

It's simple.

Your utter, abysmal, depressing, useless consistency.

It is a law of unnature, iron, inflexible, insensate.

Nobody could be this unclear this consistently by sheer accident.

When anyone gets after you, you cut and paste a "constructive" but still pointless thead as if to say "see, I am too bona fide in my lucubrations". It goes nowhere. It is a rhetorical abortus.

Then it's back to business.

Whatever that may be.

 

Re: j'accuse

UJ
You are single sided and biased.
Far from beeng objective and others see that.

I have full right to defend my self when allegations made such as Dayson, in this instance made.

I repeat there is a reason for Professional Accreditation to exist.
Why ? cant we close all professional accreditors and have only NA and RA?

My words are harsh on the topic because I'm trying to address the importance of such accreditation and only politically or personally motivated persons will go against my message.

My opinion is that RA is perfect accreditation for History degree.
My opinion is that RA + APA is perfect accreditation for Clinical Psychology degree. RA only will have limited value.

I stand by my words.

Bill has my number so he can call me and we can have a chat I will let him talk to my friend who regrets he didn't hear a message such as my earlier and got degree that is RA but limits his possibilities because its not PA.

Some how I think he is not the only one.

My message to the readers is good and has high value and in no way it was to attack you or BillDyson or anyone else.
If anything its you who is looking for any opportunity to post negative about me.

Learner

 

UJ

Unknown standard and unknown professional standard are two different issues.

RA is exellent standard but its not sufficient this is why there are Professional Accreditors to add value to the RA institutiion by insuring that the degree program is of known nationally agreed PROFESSIONAL STANDARD.

Think about it before you reply.

Learner

 

Okay... I think everyone pretty much gets it. Why it took 113 posts (114, including mine, here; and 115 if you include the thread-starting post) for that to happen, I'll never exactly know...

...but I'm definitely starting to smell the stink of a well-beaten, dead horse around here at this point.

So Lerner can have, in effect, the last word, immediately above.

And this thread's done.