Reviewing the Evaluator: The Efficacy of the ODA

Juega!

Let the games begin!

(........sorry, I am always wanted to say this.)

 

So what is proposed?

Should we all make our own research about every university?

Can an HR representative satisfy that the person received quality education by verifying that the University is properly accredited or recognized overseas?

Mark of quality it's like a certification that seatrain standard has been met.
When I build military standard equipment I use Mil Spec Standard components that have been certified for that propose.

Now if the applicant to the university or a job that requires degree comes with a paper from uncertified entity I simply don't know what if at all he studied there.

He maybe a researcher associate from one of this providers or maybe he just invented the school and build a web site called My University.

Once the entity is unaccredited HR now has to conduct research
and try to figure if the degree from such an entity will meet the standards required for the position, et least satisfy the education requirements.

HR professional by checking if the entity is properly accredited yes RA, PA maybe NA or foreign equivalent he has a base line.

Accredited - minimum defined standards of quality are met.

OK this is 14 karat gold – a credible organization certifies that, so I don’t need to start performing the check by my salve.
.

 

Jake_A, you have misconstrued my argument – and, unfortunately, I’m convinced your more than clever enough to know it.

Jake_A and Lerner don’t mind if I bundle the two of your arguments together.

Jake_A stated: “Morgan, if you or anyone else brandishing an unaccredited degree of any type shows up at either Rand, or Brookings or Heritage, etc., take this from me: You will be laughed out of the ball park (ummm, mall).”

Lerner stated: “Can an HR representative satisfy that the person received quality education by verifying that the University is properly accredited or recognized overseas?”

I hope you don’t take offense, but this is the type of “false dilemma” that you RA Knights are constantly, on almost every thread, brandishing about as if it were the once and for all victory shot. (My heart of heart tells me that in some RA Knight training camp they taught you this tactic to confuse the newbies).

The fact is, there are lots of logical possibilities. Let’s start with Lerner first: The more likely scenario is that the holder of the unaccredited degree – (e.g. PWU) - is in a supervisory position and will be the one making the hiring decision, while the applicant will be a holder of an accredited degree. It’s rarely going to be an HR decision of which of the two candidates to select. (I could also imagine an HR person with an unaccredited degree deciding between two RA candidiates).

Let’s look at Jake_A’s: Based on the Democracy and Media statement, a think-tank scholar may not hold a degree at all. Instead of (here we go with the RA Knight’s school ploy again) viewing the individual as an applicant, s/he is more than likely an individual who has achieved her/his position at the think tank based on her/his merits. The PWU (for example) degree is simply to testify to that which s/he has achieved.

Note PWU’s “Philosophy”: [PWU]…”addresses mature career-oriented men and women. Students accepted here can readily document competence and expertise in the specific knowledge and activities necessary for a successful career…Our programs are thus designed to meet their needs rather than those fo the young inexperienced learner…”

(Those of you who have moved professionally beyond the applicant stage know that it's never about where you went to school. Instead, it's always about competency, people skills, problem-solving ability, presentation, demeanor, patience, etc. It's NEVER about where you spent your money).

On the laughter that would greet an applicant at a think-tank: I dare say that any fresh Ph.D. from any major RA institution would be greeted with a chorus of laughter if s/he thought they could go from Yale to Brookings in a day.

Best,

Morgan

 

If you read my post you will read that it's inclusive to all recognized accreditation and recognized educational institutions internationally.

As far as PWU its unacredited university.
I have a friend with Masters degree from PWU and Bachelors degree from Oregon.

The guy is a manager so its maching your example.

Not so long ego before the internet and PC in every home era, there were limited chices of non traraditional universities and PWU, CCU, CPU etc had their limited value but it was always a second rate degree and usualy for persons with traditional BA or BS degree.

So as long as undergraduate degree was fully accredited then
in some instances Masters degree from better State approved unaacredited school had some value.

So may I state that even if there are some Managers with PWU
type degree they hold fully accredited RA or NA undergraduate degree.

And if the applicant has his undergrad degree from unaccredited university then they will know better.

because all Alex had todo in order to earn his Masters from PWU
is write a comprehansive technical paper.

but he spend in State RA school good 5 years earning his BSc degree.

I recomed to make a distinction between unaccredited Bachelors degree and unaccredited graduate degree.

post Graduate degrees are special and will be addressed later.

And one more thing I think most managers that are degreed hold fully accredited degrees
and there are some with PWU type degrees as well

Lerner

 

Sorry to have been away from the list during this discussion. Here are a few factlets.

The cost of a validation review for Oregon degree use is currently $250. This fee is required by the legislature, but does not constitute a major part of our budget.

Size and wealth are not factors for Oregon approval, although they can be for accreditation. Very small schools in Oregon have had no trouble becoming approved if they have a qualified faculty, an appropriate curriculum, acceptable policies on the award of credit and appropriate admission standards. There are some other factors, but these are the major ones.

I suggest that any discussion of what kind of unaccredited entity is a degree mill begin with one sharp demarcation: any entity that does not have the legal authority to issue degrees from the jurisdiction where it is physically located is automatically a degree mill because the degrees it issues are inherently fraudulent. The Oregon Department of Justice takes this position and so do we.

The reason is simple: in the United States, the authority to issue degrees is based solely in state authority except when superseded by Congress. There is no such thing in the U.S. today as inherent authority in a private party to issue college degrees. We know of no modern legal precedent to the contrary, and plenty in support of this concept. You may disagree with it, but foaming about it wastes everyone's time, it is the law and the norm in the U.S. Even "religious exempt" schools are not exempt because they want to be, they are exempt because of a specific provision of a state law. Half of the states do not even allow religious exemptions.

People sometimes forget that no accreditor, federally recognized or invented, has the legal authority to authorize a college to operate or to issue degrees. States, and only states, have this authority, except when Congress carves out a special case (i.e. the military academies).

When we discuss the differences among "gray area" unaccredited colleges, we are really discussing only those that have state approval to issue degrees, some of which are legitimate postsecondary providers and some of which are scams and substandard degree suppliers.

 

My God. I don’t believe what I see.

The Great Alan Contreras, accepts that the accreditation companies have no legal power over education. (Very True)

That the supreme power in education are the States; education is a State thing. (Very True).

In addition, recognize that US have plenty of Jurisprudences and administrative rules that say that Education is only power of each State. (Very True)

Para Alan;

Dios Santo Alan; Ha ocurrido un milagro.

Alan; ¿Qué paso? Me has dejado boquiabierto. Jamás me pasó por la mente, que ibas a reconocer, que la educación es sólo materia de los Estados.

 

I suspect that the relationship of accreditors, schools and the government will be changing - earlier this week a court found that the Southern Association had to use essentially the same process as a government agency would to deny accreditation. The accreditor lost the case. This may well start a redefinition of roles and processes.

Oregon has never taken the position that accreditors are godlike, we have taken the position that their review provides a reasonable floor for concluding that a degree granter has certain basic standards, a floor which state approval cannot provide because some states have lousy standards.

In other words, our view is and has been that although states have the legal authority to control degree issuance, states are not necessarily a source of quality control. These are separate issues.

 

Therefore, in a analogous approach, always remember:

1-To provide fair and impartial procedure and,

2-That common law due process requires the accrediting body's decision not be arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law.

See;

In the accreditation context, common law due process requires the accrediting body's decision not be arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law or reached without observance of procedure required by law.Western State University of Southern California v. American Bar Ass'n, 301 F.Supp.2d 1129C.D.Cal.S.Div.,2004

In reviewing denial of accreditation to school, courts focus primarily on whether accrediting body's internal rulesprovide fair and impartial procedure and whether it has followed its rules in reaching its decision. Foundation for Interior Design Educ. Research v. Savannah College of Art and Design, 39 F.Supp.2d 889
W.D.Mich.,1998

College could not assert common-law counterclaims for breach of contract, violation of common law procedural due process, violation of common-law substantive due process, breach of fiduciary duty, and fraud in suit brought by accrediting body seeking to uphold its denial of accreditation; decision by accrediting bodies would be analyzed as administrative decision rather than as traditional common-law claims.Foundation for Interior Design Educ. Research v. Savannah College of Art and Design, 73 F.Supp.2d 829W.D.Mich.S.Div.,1999


Federal jurisdiction existed, pursuant to statute, over unaccredited law school's action against American Bar Association (ABA) and others which arose from ABA's withholding of accreditation. Higher Education Act of 1965, § 496(f), as amended, 20 U.S.C.A. § 1099b(f).Massachusetts School of Law at Andover, Inc. v. American Bar Ass'n, 142 F.3d 26C.A.1.Mass.,1998

Review of accrediting association's decision to withdraw accreditation is limited to whether decision is arbitrary and unreasonable and whether decision was supported by substantial evidence, and question is whether accrediting body's internal rules provide fair and impartial procedure and whether it has followed its rules in reaching its decision.Florida College of Business v. Accrediting Council for Independent Colleges and Schools, 954 F.Supp. 256S.D.Fla.,1996

Fact that unaccredited law school did not currently seek or accept federal monies for itself or in payment of its tuition did not render Higher Education Act, which governed federal court jurisdiction over actions involving denial of accreditation of institution of higher education, inapplicable to law school. Higher Education Act of 1965, § 496(f), as amended, 20 U.S.C.A. § 1099b(f).Massachusetts School of Law at Andover, Inc. v. American Bar Ass'n, 914 F.Supp. 688D.Mass.,1996


Determining whether national accrediting association's action with respect to withdrawing accreditation of vocational school was arbitrary and unreasonable was essentially question of whether accrediting body's internal rules provided fair and impartial procedure and whether it had followed its rules in reaching its decision; inquiry was necessarily one of deference, as standards of accreditation are not guides for layman but for professionals in field of education. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 14.Peoria School of Business, Inc. v. Accrediting Council for Continuing Educ. and Training, 805 F.Supp. 579N.D.Ill.,1992

 

While it is true that accrediting agencies cannot bequeath the right to schools to award degrees, it is also true that all accredited schools also have the authority from their states to do so. It is a requirement of accreditors. Losing one's state authority to award degrees can lead directly to a loss of accreditation. See Beacon College for an example of this, or Union Institute and University for an example of the threat of this.

 

Hallelujah! Thank you, Dr. Contreras, for that synopsis. It succinctly puts KWE and PWE in their proper places in this discussion - firmly in the degree/diploma mill sewer!

Praise be!! Thanks, Dr. Douglas, for your summative precis.

Now, everyone, please get ready for the mill shill's translation of the above cogent observations.

Here it comes .....

Intent on reading into Dr. Contreras's (and Dr. Douglas's) posts what a mill shill wants to see (that is, an interpretation that rationalises and somehow, in the shill's mind justifies, the existence of diploma mills and their shills in US states), the probably fake degree-holder and mill shill (d)r. L. J., comes out to shill and to attack, armed with a twisted mouth and a rubber-band sling-shot!

To add irrelevance to the mill shill's own confusion and biased interpretation which is mostly based on wishful-thinking, the probably fake (d)r. L. J. dispenses with the inconvenience of the English language (which (d)r. L. J. so routinely jumbles up) by attempting to impress us with a harangue in Spanish:

"Para Alan;
"Dios Santo Alan; Ha ocurrido un milagro.
"Alan; ¿Qué paso? Me has dejado boquiabierto. Jamás me pasó por la mente, que ibas a reconocer, que la educación es sólo materia de los Estados."

This woeful lament by (d)r. L. J. is translated below.

I include unedited and as is, (d)r. L. J.'s infamous and flawed punctuation and sentence construction capabilities - demonstrably poor in Spanish as they are en Anglaise:

"For Alan; God Saint Alan; It has happened a miracle. Alan; What step? You have left me agape. It never passed me through the mind, that you were going to recognize, that the education is only matter of the States.

Please note that the (sic) un-erudite (d)r. L. J. sees fit to say "It never passed me through the mind,...." and not the simpler and grammatical "It never passed through my mind......"

The mill shill's (d)r. L. J.'s entire travail above is/was to show us that in the US, states have the ultimate power, even states that somehow look askance and licences blatant mills to operate and grant "degrees" like PWE and KWE.

The mill shill is thus glad that Dr. Contreras (in the shill's warped mind) had seen the light!

The distortion and confusion is easy to spot, though.

Blatant and nonsensical shill-speak! Nothing new here.

Caveat emptor!

'Nough said.

Thanks.

 

In Uncle manner;

“What's that noise? Just the shit hitting the pfann...”

http://forums.degreeinfo.com/showthread.php?s=&postid=160875&highlight=shit#post160875

 

Don't invoke me. You're no match for el brujo rumano and real Latin magic.

 

So Morgan, are you trying to say that there are PWU grads employed at "known" think-tanks? Are you trying to say that you can cite evidence indicating that there are research-oriented employees (not the janitors, mind you) employed at known think-tanks who have no degrees whatsoever? How many can you name?
More philosophical hot air?
Jack

 

Sir Jack Tracey:

I fear that you have dealt the final blow,
drawing forth my blood to flow.

To all you RA Knights and Zealots I do say:
Let your swords not rust, and your shields not turn to dross
For there shall come a time when ours shall surely cross,
- where there shall be no room for play.

And to all you newbies who have seen our light,
and who have wept at our plight:
Do not live in dread - for we shall meet within another thread.

And to you Dr. Latin Juris do I say:
Speak the Truth
Beware their bile
These women and men
Who
When all else fails
Resort to ad hominem

Now stand fast this round –
dear friend -
And one last time
Defend this hallowed unaccredited ground.

Adieu

 

I find this profanity to be offensive....

Dave

 

Whatever.
Jack

 

Bull, etc.

PS. Dave, I agree. That surrealist profaned my profanity. Quite offensive.

 

Bull etc...

Dr. Latin Juris,
Illiud Latine dici non potest. Take on Uncle and you are raptus regaliter. So, fac ut vivas. Please excuse any errors Uncle. I hope non erravi perniciose.
Clay

 

DesElms and Rich, Thanks for explaining the nuances of that post. I had missed the amusing significance or is it amusing lack of significance?