Unaccredited Degrees Are Legal

decimon, I think that you've missed reading a few posts.

Accreditation is the accepted standard. That is not "supported with skyhooks". It is a fact. It was Morgan arguing that the government should investigate all schools. This seems to be in complete contradiction to his position that unaccredited schools should be accepted at face value but that was his argument in this thread.

 

I am just me and I don't run with any herd.

Do you realize what you are saying when you type these things? Not me or any of that crowd you speak of has said you "must trust" anything. If you must trust someone selling the Brooklyn Bridge then there is nothing any person or any government can do to save you from yourself.

 

Legal Things

It's legal for me to print myself a diploma on my ink jet printer and hang it on my wall, but that diploma won't represent any kind of education, let alone a quality education, let alone a degree.

Print a diploma and put it on my wall=legal

Claim to anyone that it's a degree= fraud

It's the same thing with your UA schools.

 

Interesting analogy. Let's pursue it further.

It's true that the burden of proof that a dietary supplement is *harmful* falls upon the FDA. But it's also true that the burden of proof that a supplement is *effective* falls upon the supplement manufacturer. In practice, dietary supplements are commonly sold even if there is little or no evidence that they are effective, and so supplements are routinely labelled with the following legal disclaimer:

"These statements have not been evaluated by the Food and Drug Administration. This product is not intended to diagnose, treat, cure or prevent any disease."

So following Mr. Khanstein's analogy, unaccredited degree programs could include a disclaimer like the following:

"This degree program has not been evaluated by a recognized accrediting agency. This degree program is not intended to convey competency or understanding of any body of knowledge".

The disclaimer could be printed on the actual diploma, and could be reiterated by the degree holder when applying for jobs, licenses, etc. In fact, the State of Oregon currently requires unaccredited degree holders to include such a disclaimer when advertising their degree.

A potential student of an unaccredited school, or a potential employer of an unaccredited degree holder, would be free to disregard this disclaimer, just as consumers are free to disregard the disclaimer on dietary supplements.

 

Let's look at the question of the "burden of proof" differently. Here are two statements:

(1) X is a criminal.
(2) Y is a model citizen.

In #1 X should not have to prove that s/he isn't a criminal. Instead, the burden falls on the accuser (i.e. the government).

In #2 Y does have the burden of proof that s/he is a model citizen.

Likewise, the accusation that an IHE is a diploma mill must be proven (beyond a reasonable doubt) by the government.

The claim that an IHE meets RA or CHEA standards must be proven by the IHE.

Asking that the government prove that X is a diploma mill before making the accusation is not setting up an accreditation system.

An IHE that claims it is equivalent to RA schools must prove that claim to the public. Although RA membership is the best guarantee of quality, I would argue that internal quality control mechanisms may also establish quality to the public.

Under the current regime the burden of proof is unfairly placed on the school.

 

Just to review, Morgan K. wrote this:

"Another point to consider under this topic of discussion is: Who has the burden of proof that a school is "substandard"?

I believe that the burden should fall on the government rather than on the IHE to prove that it meets standards."

I'm just saying that it makes good sense to treat non-accredited schools with considerable initial skepticism. That means making the initial assumption that a non-accredited school is most likely substandard, until and unless some persuasive evidence is presented as to its credibility.

The burden of proof is on those who want particular non-accredited degrees, programs and schools to receive greater consideration to present whatever evidence they have to those whose opinions they want to change.

 

That's a far cry from advocating government diktat - the subject of this thread.

That's dodging the matter of who should (individuals) or must (government) be persuaded.

That is our legal and political system. The burden of proof falls on the accuser. Change that for your pet issue and we must change as well for everyone's pet issue. The result, with no exaggeration, would be a police state.

You can sell Yugos at 6 Main St. and Lexuses at 8 Main Street and let caveat emptor prevail as there is no fraud involved. TESC was recently described in Reason magazine as being a degree mill but you can sell both TESC and NJIT in New Jersey and let caveat emptor prevail as there is no fraud involved.

Fraud should be the issue. You can sell a Tonka toy as a toy automobile but cannot sell a Tonka toy a a real automobile as that would be fraud. What would constitute fraud in higher education is to me less clear. Is it reasonable to expect an educational "degree" or "college degree" to be RA? Maybe so and if so then other usages would reasonably be considered fraud. Establish what is fraud and you'll have what you seek.

Fraud can be established in law while "my pet peeve" cannot.

 

Could you define IHE?
Thanks

 

Institution of higher education, perhaps.

 

You run with all kinds of herds decimon. No matter how loudly a bird may declare that he's not part of a flock, if he's flying with a flock then he's part of that flock.

If you stay away from unaccredited degrees then you don't need the government to protect you from academic fraud.

 

I agree. And the "government" - at least two relevant and particularly germaine parts of it, the US GAO and US Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs - in a widely publicized report released in May 2004, agrees also.

"Fraud should be the issue." - Ok, fine. Agreed.

"You can sell a Tonka toy as a toy automobile but cannot sell a Tonka toy a a real automobile as that would be fraud."

Fine. Agreed.

One can therefore present an RA degree for employment as an RA degree. One can present an unaccredited or diploma mill degree as an unaccredited degree or diploma mill degree (by explicitly stating such).

But what needs to happen if one presents an unaccredited or diploma mill degree for employment (or security or identification purposes, etc) and does not, or fails to, or refuses to declare such as an unaccredited or diploma mill degree?

The "government" - its competence/incompetence aside - has no role in preventing / investigating / prosecuting such?

Thanks.

 

That's up to the employer. If you own Two Jakes Schizoidals and you wish to hire Harley Halfwit with his unaccredited degree then shouldn't you be able to? Isn't it your option to be wise or foolish with your decisions? Who is to say that Harley won't turn out to be an excellent choice?

Sometimes it is the jester who is on the beam.

Well, okay, I just like that story.

Preventing? For everything there is a law "preventing" there are many violations prosecuted and many more beyond the reach and ken of government.

Investigating/prosecuting? Investigating and prosecuting whatever Jake dislikes or...what? What aside from fraud is there to investigate and prosecute?

 

"What aside from fraud is there to investigate and prosecute?"

Fraud! Just investigate and prosecute fraud. And not what I call fraud but what the law calls fraud.

Taking this stance to its logical conclusion, (if conclusion there ever will or can be....). I guess Nevada Chief Deputy Attorney General Gerald Gardner (one agent at least, of "government" as I see it), should also butt out and not go after the medical fakes and quacks with their deceitful and fraudulent diploma mill degrees.

Let the "employer" do it ..... go after a man who was "posing as a doctor at a medical office on Gibson Road, handed out medical advice. But Andrew Elias Michael didn't stop there. said, "This is a man who not only claims to be a doctor, but also a lawyer, a fighter, jet pilot -- and an MBA."

He had, I believe, five unaccredited and diploma mill degrees hanging on his wall.

Ok, ok, I agree. He had a right to put them on his wall. And the hospital had a right to hire him. The employer's domain, and his/hers alone?

Back to the discussion - "Unaccredited Degrees Are Legal."

Of course, they are. And BOGUS, too - most likely.

They are legal. Even if, fake "Dr." Harley Halfwit thus ends up in an ER operating theater and takes out your lung or two, instead of those pesky gall bladder stones?

Or even if Harley Halfwit, Esquire, uses his unaccredited degree to secure a position of confidence and trust in the Department of Homeland Security and is - Holy Mojimbo! - put in charge of verifying the credentials of undercover Homeland Security employees?

And in many, many other possible nightmare scenarios?

You may have the last word, decimon. I am done.

Thanks.

 

Burden of proof: it's on the school

Mr. Khanstein's analogy doesn't get off the ground. In Case (1) above, it is a generally accepted principle that an individual has a right to liberty, and cannot be deprived of that right by the government without due cause. Therefore the burden of proof is on the government to demonstrate that he should be imprisoned.

But (whether we like it or not) there is no generally accepted principle that private parties have the right to bestow academic degrees. And Mr. Khanstein is well aware of this fact, as demonstrated by his previous post in this thread:

So if a private party wants to issue a legal academic degree, it must seek permission from state government. And it must meet whatever standards are set by state government. Like it or not, the state government has the rights and sets the rules, and the burden of proof is on the private party to show that it meets them.

In practice, some states have more lenient standards than others. And so an academic degree may be perfectly legal in one state, yet be classified as substandard in others. If your degree is RA or NA, it will probably be accepted in any state. If it isn't, then you take your chances.

There should be nothing surprising about this. For example, states have differing standards for professional licenses, or even driver's licenses. A 15-year-old may be issued a legal driver's license in State A, but it may not be honored in State B, where the driving age is 17.

Anyone who believes that state governments should yield their degree-granting authority, and assume the burden of proof for demonstrating that a degree is substandard, is free to try to persuade them to do so. Good luck.

 

Jake, I hope you're not done. I enjoy your insights, though I'm often on the other side.

What I would challenge you on is the difference between a claim to expertise (viz. a degree) in a field where there is high a potential for injury to another party (e.g. medicine - your example) and where there is little or no potential for injury to another party, and competence can be established through means other than a degree or diploma (e.g. many areas of management, literature, religious studies, etc).

I fully agree with licensure in certain areas and unaccredited schools should stay clear of those areas (specifically at the entry level). However, there are many fields that should be open to UA schools.

 

Re: Burden of proof: it's on the school

Ours is a system of negative rights. Government does not confer rights in the US.

 

"Right" vs. "Permission"

Perhaps it would have been better to use the word "permission" instead of the word "right". For example, we are all aware that governments routinely issue "licenses". The American Heritage College Dictionary defines a "license" as "official or legal permission to do or own a specified thing".

In practice, permission from a state government, in the form of a license, is routinely required before undertaking activities such as driving on public roads, fishing, practicing medicine, or issuing academic degrees. We may or may not agree on the need for such licenses, but that is how the system currently works.

At present, state governments have legal authority to issue or to refuse a license to a private party that wishes to confer academic degrees. The state is not obliged to issue degree-granting authority to all applicants, just as it is not obliged to issue driver's licenses to all applicants. Whether we like it or not, the burden of proof is on the applicant to demonstrate that it meets the state's standards.

 

I have no argument with that and agree with it heartily.

But the question of state licensing is a different issue than the question of who has the burden of proof in providing evidence that a particular school meets a satisfactory standard.

An individual with a non-accredited degree in a non-regulated field is certainly free to talk up his or her school, to provide information about its strong points, and to try to make a persuasive case for it.

But if they just sit back and announce that defending their program's standard isn't their responsibility, then their non-accredited degree might not be as widely accepted as it might have been. (Nor should it be.) That's true whether or not the degree was legally granted, which is yet another issue (the original one of this thread, actually).

 

"Government does not confer rights in the U.S."-decimon

INTERESTING observation!

Hobbes talked about the natural state of men (he meant women, too) as being a war "of all against all" until people began to establish governments and subject themselves to authority in order to receive protection in return.

"We the people" confer authority on our chosen officials (federal, state, and local) to exercise some portion of our sovereignty in our collective name. The U.S. and N.M. constitutions both contain reservations of rights clauses; I agree that whatever this means, it seems to say that we are free to do whatever we like unless there is a valid restriction placed on us.

I wonder, though. Is Hobbes right? Or is the natural state of man to be the slave of another man? So do we derive our freedom from the very institutions we create? Are we born free and everywhere in chains (Rousseau?) or is being in society and subject to external control itself a defining part of human nature? Can a man alone be said even to be fully human? If so, then are freedoms are granted to us by the "collective" as a separate entity? In short, does our system of government actually confer positive rights?

 

I think that I've suffered intellectual whip-lash from all of the sudden twists and turns that this thread's taken.

Non-accredited schools are legal. Is suicide legal? Licensing rules for engineers. Emotional intelligence. Is Kennedy Western a mill? Barrington and DETC. Now Thomas Hobbes, for God's sake...

It's kind of an exercise in collective free-association, I guess.