Regional Accredited Degree in 4 Weeks

Jake, I certainly have to agree with you: KWU is definately not accredited. I don't know if they intend to go that route or not. It really doesn't matter to me if they do.
Since we are on the subject. I wonder if there would be any benefits of KWU getting its courses accredited by ACE (like other big private corporations do) rather than having its degree programs accredited. I wonder if that would be cheaper (thus not as large of an increase in tuition) and still allow transfer of KWU courses to other schools?
Jim

 

JimS,

The American Council on Education (ACE) performs a very useful function for accredited institutions and organizations, but I think that ACE IS NOT, itself, an accrediting body.

See the list of CHEA and USDoE-recognized accreditors here:
http://www.chea.org/pdf/CHEA_USDE_AllAccred.pdf

ACE is made up of approximately 1,800 accredited, degree-granting colleges and universities and higher education-related associations, organizations, and corporations.

In my opinion, its College Credit Recommendation Service which uses "rigorous evaluations" and "reliable criteria" to make "judicious credit recommendations" for credits earned at one place to be considered for acceptance at another, is a valuable and useful service.

I am not an expert in this area but presumably it would be beneficial if KWE were to use the service - but of course, it would have to be accredited first!

ACE probably could and would consider KWE's courses to be more on the level of certificate programs and courses, not degree-level courses, IMHO.

I sincerely wish you the best, JimS.

It is fortunate that, for you, accreditation, or the lack thereof, is not important. But it is, or will be, for many "students" (the innocent ones) who are currently pursuing them. The "time bomb" argument has tremendous merit and validity.

Thanks.

 

This pre-supposes a huge cost burden to K-WU brought on my pursuing accreditation. This isn't so. The costs would hardly dent K-WU's revenues.

Increases in tuition usually coincide with the granting of accreditation, not the pursuit of it. This implies market forces (more valuable degrees due to accreditation), not operating costs. We've seen this over and over with new schools, or old schools that finally go for it.

ACE evaluation is quite rigorous. Such evaluation might make individual courses more valuable--and transferrable--but it wouldn't make K-WU degree any more so. And isn't that what their students are pursuing? If K-WU students had to choose between making their courses more transferrable or making their degrees more acceptable, they'd choose the latter.

 

KWU or any other university does not have to be accredited. Accreditation is voluntary, not required. KWU students are probably well aware of the fact that the school is not accredited and choose to go there anyway. They also must be aware of the work (or lack of) that is required to get their degrees. It is their personal decision to take this route and if they do, it is really none of your business.

 

And yours?

 

That's where you are wrong. Academic frauds damage our education system. Academic fraud damages the personal lives of the frauds, the people they defraud and even loved ones. Academic fraud hurts our very social structure.

 

Russ,

Do you realize how idiotic all this degree mill speak you write sounds?! I seriously doubt you believe any of it.

P.S. I guess next your going to tell us filing taxes is voluntary too!

 

Jim,

You seem honest and intelligent but stuck in the "K-W" mindset. I hope at some point you will see these issues more clearly and drop these fantasies concerning K-W. In any event, take care,

 

Which also makes it none of yours.

 

Thank you for the complement. But, my opinions are not based on fantasies; they are based on first-hand personal experience. I admit I had some doubts about KWU after the Senate hearings, and thought about jumping ship with some of the other students. I'm glad I didn't. As a KUW student I have access to aspects of the university that are not available to the public and I like what I see. I respect their business model. The administrative staff and faculty are as professional and dedicated as the brick and mortar universities I have studied at and had business relations with. They are good people providing a valuable service. They do not deserve the slanderous comments (regarding their ethics or motives) that are heaped upon them by people who have never had personal or professional contact with them.

Jim

 

But that's the problem: there is no one who does not have a direct stake in K-WU that is given any insight into their operations. We have to trust those, like you, who have a distinct and vested interest in the answer to the question. That's why facts from people like you (not meant as an insult) are useful, but your conclusions are not. Your last post made some sweeping statements, but nothing in the way of facts that others could observe and, then, draw the same conclusions. That is always the way it is with K-WU and its supporters, which is why they see little support in a critical environment like this.

 

True, my previous post was very general. I have discussed specifics in threads on this and other forums. I'm willing to give responses to specific questions (one at a time please) for the areas of KWU I am familiar with. I don't have experience with the BA/BS programs but could ask other KWU students for their input and relay it to this forum. Just this last weekend I reviewed the current courses that are available in the BA/BS/MS/MS programs I was impressed at the curriculum for each program. Though, my opinion has not changed regarding traditional accredited programs as being better for a rounded education at the undergraduate level. But a traditional accredited program (no CLEPs, no portfolio assessment for credit, etc. - just traditional classroom courses) is not the best option (or even feasible) for most adult students.
Please excuse one more generality: the general attitude of the students on the Pub has improved greatly in the last six months. This is a direct result of KWU being more responsive to addressing the students' concerns.
Jim

 

I used to follow the discussions in the "Pub"; it seemed to me that the biggest sense of betrayal belonged to the engineering bacheloreate students once they found out that their degrees would carry little if any credit toward the EIT exam.

Has that really changed and if so, why?

 

Fine. Please explain the outcome of the senate hearings. From my reading of the transcript (or, let's be honest, anyone's reading of the transcript), it is clear what sort of school KW is. Is there an alternate understanding of that transcript?



Tom Nixon

 

Hi Jim:

I appreciate your posts about KWE, which are devoid of the shrillness and vituperation of a shill. You prove that there can be a defence of a given outfit (rightly or wrongly) which is quite distinct from shilling. Thank you for that.

I suspect that almost everyone here would agree with your gravamen against traditional classroom B&M accredited programs which I snipped from your post.

The problem is: in the face of lots of evidence (Senate hearings, etc.) that KWE is not a good--though it may be a pleasant--place to do courses and acquire a degree (or something called that), why shouldn't an accredited DL program simply knock KW out of the running entirely? For that matter, why shouldn't even another unaccredited program which offers standard numbers of courses and standard patterns of requirements for degrees (which KW does not do), also knock it out of the running?

I really hope you are getting something of value to you for your time and money spent with KWE. I remain unconvinced that it's a good choice for anyone.

Once again, I appreciate the civility of your posts and the civility of the (often very critical) responses to your posts. This is how it ought to be done: civilized people discussing a question, without the corrosive nonsense spouted by shills or the burdensome necessity of--repeatedly--exposing their nonsense for what it is lest innocent folks be misled by it.

Best wishes to you,
Janko

 

There have been some recent postings on the pub on this topic. It seems that the EIT requirements vary from US state to state. Some students have had better success with their KWU degrees than other for EIT. The good news from the students in states with strict requirements was that the KWU program was beneficial for PE exam preparation and does not exclude the students from a PE license. I ran into the same situation with my University of Maryland degree which is a pure science degree (not ABET accredited, nor an engineering or engineering technology degree).

Jim

 

Hi Tom,
I am suspicious politicians and civil servants in general, and I question the motives of the two individuals who testified at the Senate hearings.
I question why the representative from KWU was not allowed to testify. I question why the hearings were performed in the first place. The issue was using federal money for reimbursement for unaccredited education. Why is that different than reimbursement for unaccredited training (Microsoft, Novell, etc.)? It makes me think there was a hidden agenda.
One witness already had a master's degree and was complaining KWU was making it to easy for her to get a second one. This was done without finishing the program. Two of my early KWU courses were relatively easy for me, because of my experience, industry training and informal knowledge from being an avid reader. The courses are becoming increasingly difficult and culminate in a research project. That witness did not stick with the program long enough to perform an accurate evaluation. Also, that witness was not subject matter expert on distance-learning education programs.
I consider the second witness to be a disgruntled ex-employee. I am sure a disgruntled ex-employee could be dug up for any organization. Ask yourself, couldn't you give negative testamony regarding some of your former employeers?
Jim

 

Hi Monsignor Janko,
I quess we disagree on one fundamental point. You do not think KWU is "a good choice for anyone". I think it is an acceptable choice for some people, but certainly not for everyone. Outstanding traditional accredited schools should be a person's first choice. But when it comes to adult education there have to be concessions.

There is a tread on a neighboring forum regarding undergraduate and graduate programs without a math requirement. I was initially appalled at the concept. But then thought about my beloved wife's math struggles while completing her BA, and my oldest son's math struggles while completing his journalism degree. I don't think either of them could have completed their math courses without tutoring (and lucky of them I was available for free).

Some adult learners are not fortunate enough to have an in-house math tutor. Does that make their math-free degree substandard? I don't think so. It make make their degrees lower on the educational spectrum, but still satisfies their personal needs.
That is how I feel about non-accredited programs. They are low on the spectrum but still fill a need.
Degree mills, on the other hand, are not even on the spectrum.

Best regards,
Jim

 

quote

JimS:

This is hardly a persuasive argument. If, as you say, unaccredited programs do fill a need, one can just as well argue that diploma mill degrees also do fill a need, just as knowingly buying a stolen wrist watch sold from inside the coat of a street-side vendor also does fill a "need."

The question still remains unanswered:

If unaccredited schools can be legitimate (and some arguably are) and are distinctly separable from diploma mills, how is one to tell them apart if one (owner/purchaser/victim/supporter/"student" of such an unaccredited/diploma mill entity) is uncompromisingly averse to accreditation schema of any kind, as almost all of them are?

 

quote

Simple - because KWE did not request to speak or testify at the US Senate hearings even though KWE sent representatives to the hearings as observers. One does not attend a planned hearing as an observer and magically materialize as a panel testifier at said hearings. There is a process and KWE did not care enough to follow such process.