Reviewing the Review of the Evaluator: Efficacy of Substandard Education Supporters

I know that several people on Degreeinfo like that word 'fraudulent', but I think that it's probably thrown around too freely. 'Fraud' is a legal term. Fraud does sometimes occur with degree mills, either by causing damages by misleading students, or by causing damages by misleading employers and clients when the students are willing co-conspirators.

I agree with that.

But there's a third consideration besides fraud and standards. It's whether or not the degrees that an institution grants are meaningful.

The word 'non-accredited' means 'no reliable verification of standards'. That implies that non-accredited degrees don't necessarily mean that a graduate has met the standard that's generally expected. A graduate might have met any standard, or perhaps no standard at all if the degree comes from a full-frontal mill.

So by the criterion of meaningfulness, non-accredited degrees do fail precisely because they are non-accredited. And it's the business of a degree to be meaningful.

I recognize that exceptions exist, where people have reason to trust a school's standards for reasons other than accreditation. But that presupposes that those people are already familiar with the non-accredited school and with what it is doing. That's why I say (over and over) that good non-accredited degrees are most useful in specialized niche applications.

I can see the value of an M.Div. degree intended to lead to ordination in a particular religious denomination, that's granted by the non-accredited seminary run by that same denomination. Not only would the non-accredited M.Div. be acceptable in that situation, it might actually be preferred.

But I see less value in a non-accredited MBA that might be used anywhere. The school that granted it might be great, but if the broader public has no way of knowing that, then its degree is meaningless.

 

Bill - I typically agree with you and I'm not in substantial disagreement with you now however, in regard to your above statement I believe you are not entirely correct. While "fraud" is in fact a legal term with a strict legal definition, it is quite possible to use the term in a way that does not invoke the law or that strict legal definition. Any dictionary will back me up. Here's what mine says:
(this is from Webster's Seventh New Collegiate Dictionary, 1963 edition)
1a - deceit, trickery, specifically the intentional perversion of the truth in order to induce another to part with something of value or to surrender a legal right.
1b - an act of deceiving or misrepresenting
2a - one who is not who he pretends to be, an imposter
2b - one who defrauds
So, one who misrepresents, deceives, perverts the truth or otherwise pretends to be something other than what he is in reality is a fraud, even if he does not break the law as a result. There may be times when this term is used improperly but I believe that it is properly utilized in the vast majority of cases.
Jack

 

Good thoughts. Unaccredited or non-accredited really means just unverified, nothing more or nothing less, and an unverified credential has less value to the observer, regardless of the value to the individual holder.

There is really nothing inherently fraudulent or substandard about an unaccredited institution, as there are lots of reasons why an institution might be unaccredited. However, if an institution confers degrees on the unqualified or provides substandard education, then those conditions might (should) prohibit the institution from being accredited. Still, the set of unaccredited institutions and fraudulent instituions are not the same, and will never be the same, so the purist in me resists implying that unaccredited institutions are academically fraudulent.

For example, in academic publishing we rate journals with letter grades. Often the distinction between publishing in these journals and the effort required is indistinguishable to the reader of the c.v. However, the set of topical criteria used for publishing is different between journals, and this might be the only difference regardless of the level of rigor of the methods. Is it academic fraud to say you're published if you didn't get some solid hits in an A or B publication because of the topic?

Another example is that there have been instances of major, accredited academic institutions (I'd rather not name) producing some Ph.D. graduates from disciplines such as "home economics" who have produced dissertations that are simply case studies or examine hypotheses that one would see proposed by undergraduate statistics students. Was this academic fraud?

This endless debate about the merit or lack of merit of unaccredited schools reminds me of religious discussions about the authenticity of baptism. I have some good friends who think that Christian baptism cannot be correctly received if the ceremony of emersion was performed by seemingly unauthorized individuals. Wrong minister... Baptism is not conferred by humans, so one can see the parallels to unaccredited education: Is education fraudulent because it is unverified, improperly conferred or simply not received/earned? Let's be careful that we make education a test of association/correlation and not necessarily a test of differences. That is, similar should be good and different not bad...

Still, a good friend of mine who happens to be Jewish related to me his frustration with helping with a Boy Scout troop for the synagogue. The district leader of BSA wanted to do a fund raiser by selling popcorn and my friend was involved with an effort to make sure that the popcorn was kosher. However, the rabbi of the synagogue threw a big stink about the troop at the synagogue selling the popcorn, because the rabbi who blessed the popcorn went to the wrong schools, in his opinion. Wrong rabbi...

It might be better and more accurate to simply discuss specific instances of "academic fraud" in unaccredited schools rather than damn the whole class of schools that are simply unaccredited in the sense they are unverified. Tolerance for different methods of conferring degrees within a certain range is a position I find difficult to yield.

Let's avoid the "wrong minister" or "wrong rabbi" effect when assessing student achievement...

Best wishes,

Dave

 

My rough understanding in the difference between the legal context and the more casual use is that legal fraud involves the gain of something of value by one party by deceiving the victim. The more casual use does not require the defrauder to gain anything, only that he/she is being deceitful, claiming to be somthing that they are not or have something that they don't.

When I use the word fraud, it is rarely within the context of a legal term. Kind of an amusing story, I have been contacted by a lawyer who seemed to disregard the fact that I could possibly use the word without invoking the legal definition. There was even someone who theorized at the time that I was in deep doodoo because when I was sued in court they would have to interpret the term within the legal context since we would be in court. The argument being that even if the fellow was proven to be an academic fraud, I was still liable for libel because he hadn't gained anything of value from anyone through his deceit therefore he wasn't an academic fraud. I'm not a lawyer but I can't imagine that is true.

 

If your opponents make persuasive points, then if you disagree with them it becomes your responsibility to argue your case and to be even more persuasive.

In my post in response to Dave Wagner, immediately proceeding, I made some points about what non-accredited degrees communicate. You might want to reply to it.

I think that virtually everyone on Degreeinfo accepts the idea of prior-learning assessment. In fact, a great many of the posts on the main forum are always about credit by examination.

But prior learning has to be credibly and reliably assessed on a course-by-course basis. It can't just be used as a fig-leaf to justify selling degrees.

 

I'm sorry that in my fit of disappointment I seemed to take offense at your playful RA Knights term. I did not consider it a personal attack. I did not take offense at this but I really was disappointed. I did enjoy your playful response but was truly disappointed when I incorrectly jumped to the conclusion that it was your real response. I'm looking forward to your more serious response.

 

Racism! Xenophobia! Oh my! Mr/Ms Khanstein has his/her knickers in a twist. My opinion of Dr Latin Juris is fairly low. The reasons are pretty clear. He surrealistically supports LTW's. I don't. He engages in gutter attacks on Alan Contreras. I don't.

But racism? Xenophobia? Moi? Dear old Khanstein has GOT to be kidding. If DLJ and I make jokes about Dominican politics or the absurd Faro de Colon in Santo Domingo, that's hardly xenophobia. Racism? We Latins on this board seem to get along OK, except for DLJ's um milling about. Is DLJ racist for attacking Contreras? No, he's just wrong to do it, but hardly racist.

But Mr/Ms Khanstein can't even spell a furrin-sounding name (mine) correctly. Is that xenophobia? Or racism? I shouldn't think so. It's just ignant and sh*t, in the immortal words of Screamin' Jay Hawkins. Once again we see the level on which the defenders of crappy schools and crappy oversight choose to function.

To be 100% serious for a moment: Mr/Ms Khanstein, did YOU condole with Dr Latin Juris over the horrible prison fire at Higuey, D.R.? Did you denounce those who said the victims got what they had coming? Do you regularly defend legitimate African DL and its good name? Have you denounced those (mostly Caucasian folks) who have millishly profiteered on the misery of Liberia? Did you ever study at a foreign university? Have you ever been a student at an HBCU? Do you relentlessly denounce anti-Semitism whenever it crops up in posts unreflective of degreeinfo? Oh. OK. I didn't think so.

 

H. Salt, of fish and chips fame, was also an "Esquire"...

Dave

 

P.S. to my previous message, other people have asked some most excellent questions. I like some of their questions/points even better than my own.

We've had some similar discussions in the past. For example, Bill Dayson did a super job proving to everyone that some unaccredited schools that were specialized in a small niche were part of the greater academic research community. Which means that their Ph.D.s would be completely bona fide even though unaccredited, at least IMHO. Before you get to excited though, Morgan, I have not yet seen an example of a habitually unaccredited distance learning school that is part of the greater academic research community.

 

So much has been said since last night, I hardley know where to begin unpacking.

Here are a few of my positions. Which, if any, would you like to discuss.

Uncle Janko - I speak "Truth to Power" where it needs to be spoken. And yes to most of your questions.

1. An unaccredited university may meet or exceed the standards of an RA university.
2. RA membership signifies that minimum standards have been met, as established by that particular RA body.
3. RA membership does not signify that an RA institution is superior to a non-RA institution.
3. Non RA membership does not signifies (a) that RA standards have been exceeded; (b) that minimum RA membership has been met (b) that the institution is substandard to RA membership standards. Thus non RA schools are neither superior to or inferior to RA members.
4. One cannot infer from the practices and behaviors of any (or even most) non-RA members about the category of all members.
5. One must distinguish between the state of non RA schools that ARE from that which OUGHT to be.
6. A self-governing institution of higher education COULD guarantee its own high standards through internal mechanisms.
7. Many non RA schools, based on profit over ideology, will respond to market demands. If the consumer demand for non RA services is for high quality services, non RA schools are likely to respond to such demand by providing such services.
8. High quality performance standards, and quality controls, for non RA members could be developed through other means (e.g. an association of independent schools and scholars, working together to enforce their own standards for membership).
9. The value of an individual’s non RA degree is based not on affiliation with the school, but in the merit of the worked performed at that school.
10. The merit of such work could be demonstrated to the public by making sample course work and dissertation available to the public for review.
11. A State office of higher education COULD review an individual dissertation from an individual who completed said work at a non RA and award recognition to that individual based upon his/her work, rather than by affiliation with an institution (e.g. many states will allow teachers to apply for a “credit count” towards certification in a field rather than completing certification at an individual university).
12. The government’s role with regards to degree recognition should be limited to refereeing only those areas in which the public safety or transactions are concerned (e.g. psychology, law) and not areas (e.g. poetry).
13. An individual holder of a non RA member institution should not use such degree to gain or advance in employment (unless said degree has been recognized by the state).
14. An individual holder of a non RA member institution may use the degree for non commercial or non public service functions, as long as there is no demonstrated potential for harm to another person, animal, the environment.

 

I'm not sure who has suggested that they are. But yeah, I agree with you.

I don't have a clue about statistics, having never taken a statistics class in my life. And I think that I have more respect for home economics than you do. But sure, I get your point. (I'd be more inclined to draw my examples from post-modern critical theory, though.)

While I think that accredittion is highly reliable, it certainly isn't absolute. Abuses almost certainly exist. Given the thousands of higher education institutions out there and the millions of students, that's probably inevitable.

My approach to accredited schools is to accept them defeasibly. That is, to assume that what an accredited school is doing is legitimate, but to be willing to hear evidence that it isn't.

I don't understand statistics-talk, but I think that I get your point and that I agree with it.

At this point in my life I've done an MA (from the same school as Morgan, it so happens) and don't anticipate doing a doctorate. So my present interest is largely directed towards education without a degree objective.

In this situation, I find accreditation to be of little relevance. It does help me determine whether particular courses are credible. But if I find that I like a class for other reasons, lack of accreditation isn't going to deter me. I just don't have very much to lose. If I find that a class isn't worthwhile, I'll just drop it. It's like checking out a library book, except that it's interactive.

So yeah, I'd be the last person to say that education from non-accredited sources has no value.

But degrees and certifications are a different matter. That's when things get more complicated.

I guess that my attitude towards non-accredited degree programs is kind of the inverse of my attitude towards accredited programs stated up above.

I approach non-accredited progams with strong initial skepticism, but that skepticism is defeasible. In other words, I leave open the possibility that a non-accredited program might be good, but that case needs to be made. I'm certainly not going to automatically embrace all non-accredited degree programs sight-unseen, a-priori.

 

Truth to power? What a load of crap.
-------------------------
Bill Dayson, this is off-topic, but could you PM me some suggested readings in postmodern literary theory? I'm afraid that most of reading in lit theory is kinda premodern (Isocrates, Cicero, Quintilian, blah blah blah), somehow I skipped modern (figures!), and when I've done unguided reading in postmodernism, I haven't made the kind of progress I should like.
--------------------------

I may have to quit supporting any unaccredited schools, something I have done consistently. Other than Bill Dayson's very highly selective support--is calling it exceptionalism OK?--and a very few other posters, I don't care to be associated with those who claim to support unaccredited *education* when all they really want is a free hand for mills, shills, Contreras-haters, UIU-obsessives and the entire omnium gatherum of trollery.

Learning how to waste one's time, lose one's money, deceive one's employer, enrich millists, and destroy the reputation of the handful of unaccredited schools which are ethical and substantive by creating a miasma of lies, damn lies, and fake statistics does not qualify in my book as *education*.

When I was a prison chaplain, I encountered many people analogously "educated" in deception and, yes, fraud in the legal sense, who did not have exactly a happy issue out of all their afflictions (sic).

The last paragraph of Bill's preceding post sums up my "take" on unaccredited schools better than I could have done.

But given the unending cloacal flow of millists, shills, and trolls all sheltering under the banner of some sort of pretended equal opportunity for anything calling itself a "university", regardless of reality, and anybody calling himself or herself "doctor", etc., regardless of manifest ignorance, derisory work, or no work at all, I am not sure that being known as a defender of unaccredited schools other than those clearly transitioning (sic) to genuine accreditation is really worth the bother any more.

 

Healthy skepticism toward unaccredited degree programs seems wise to me...

Dave

 

An excellent summary of my feeling of most of Bill Dayson's post!

 

Hi. Actually, I think MK scored a point here... His point seems to be a reference to the classic exception and/or ecological fallacy, which is sort of a flip/flopping of the unit of analysis in the reasoning process between the group and individual level. Individual characteristics are attributed to the whole group and then group characteristics are projected onto the individual. This is a problem when the alleged group is not really a group at all, except in the respect that they are not part of another group. Unaccredited schools are such a group that exists by virtue of not being accredited and may not share very many other characteristics.

Ecological fallacy: "The ecological fallacy occurs when you make conclusions about individuals based only on analyses of group data. For instance, assume that you measured the math scores of a particular classroom and found that they had the highest average score in the district. Later (probably at the mall) you run into one of the kids from that class and you think to yourself "she must be a math whiz." Aha! Fallacy! Just because she comes from the class with the highest average doesn't mean that she is automatically a high-scorer in math. She could be the lowest math scorer in a class that otherwise consists of math geniuses!"

Exception fallacy: "An exception fallacy is sort of the reverse of the ecological fallacy. It occurs when you reach a group conclusion on the basis of exceptional cases. This is the kind of fallacious reasoning that is at the core of a lot of sexism and racism. The stereotype is of the guy who sees a woman make a driving error and concludes that "women are terrible drivers." Wrong! Fallacy!"

Source: http://www.socialresearchmethods.net/kb/fallacy.htm

Best wishes,

Dave

 

Jack, you have more patience than I. My inclination was to just say something like, "There's also a possibility that the sun will never rise in the sky again but it doens't do any good trying to live by such strange possibilities." Then I thought, why let my disappointment rule me again, perhaps he will still respond with substance.

An excellent example of a potential substantive discussion. Another might be why Morgan thinks that PWU is a good school or even challenging me on my statement that PWU is a diploma mill. Another would be any unaccredited distance learning school that Morgan feels is part of the greater academic research community. Another might be why he feels that an unaccredited school need not be a member of the academic community but could still bestow valid PhD's. Morgan, do you feel that a doctorate carries any special requirements or is it just learn more stuff? What is the difference between a Master's and a doctorate? Why is a resume/application sufficient for vast quantities of college credits?

Morgan, you have a terrible burden to save me. My disappointment is on the verge of breaking loose once again.

 

Ok Dave, so play it out the other way. Just because she "graduated" from an unaccredited school that has no known QA process, just because she has a degree but no transcripts, just because there is no verifiable method of determining that she actually took any courses, that doesn't mean that I shouldn't hire her. The abstract arguements are fine. You can talk about logical fallacies all day, but what does it really mean in the real world? If Morgan ever shows some intestinal fortitude and gives us his list of respectable unaccredited universities then you can pay your money and enroll in one of Morgan's schools. Then when you go on your next job interview you can lecture the interviewer about logical fallacies.
Jack

 

What the exception fallacy means in the real world is that if you characterize a group based on information about one member of the group, you could be wrong.

What the ecological fallacy means in the real world is that if you characterize a member of a group solely based on membership in the group, you could be wrong.

If you knowingly say something that is wrong, what does that make you? Perhaps a few things, but not right is one of them...

Best wishes,

Dave

 

I know this might sound a bit simplistic, but I think it cuts to the chase:

Are there SOME (relatively few) non-accredited schools that provide a quality education? Yes

Are there SOME (relatively few) RA schools that provide a lousy education? Yes

Do the VAST MAJORITY of non-accredited schools provide a lousy education? Yes

Do the VAST MAJORITY of accredited schools provide a quality education? Yes

End of story.