Unlawful to Discriminate Against Unaccredited Degrees

According to the State of Oregon, an employer who does not specifically request a certain type of degree for employment cannot discriminate against an applicant who has a religious degree from an unaccredited (or accredited) school and uses it to meet the BA/BS educational requirement. The same applies for tuition reimbursement programs that are not requiring a particular type of degree.

This is a step in the right direction but should be followed up with the same status given to any unaccredited degree from a legitimate school. In other words, if an employer requires a BA/BS degree for a entry level position the employer would be prohibited from disqualifying a candidate based on an unaccredited degree.

Best of all from my perspective (as an employer) is to let us determine the qualifications of our employees ourselves without any state interference or babysitting. We don't need "Big Brother" state to look over our shoulders and make sure we are hiring the right people.

 

This is a strange interpretation. Employers discriminate among job applicants in a wide array of factors, including education. Other than in a few protected areas, employers are free to discriminate all they wish. The source of one's credentials isn't one of the protected areas.

Some employers recruit from a limited set of schools. You won't find that in their policies, but it is true.

A job applicant who loses out on a job because the person selected has the same degree, but from a school the employer holds in higher esteem, does not have a case. To suggest otherwise would require a revolutionary shift in human resource management. That has not happened.

(NB: New readers who are not familiar with the personality posting under the tag name "russ" would be advised to read some of the other threads he has initiated.)

 

It is a step in the right direction, in that it will cause employers to request that applicants have accredited degrees, or regionally accredited degrees or face bogus lawsuits from people with unaccredited or degree mill degrees. About time!

 

Not always the case between unaccredited and accredited.
We make clear that for engineering positions ABET accredited degrees prefered.

Our company hires engineers and the policy that is 90% enforced
is to hire only ABET accredited degree holders - the leading authority on educational standards for the engineering and science professions.


Internally it has been proven number of times that degree holders in engineering from ABET accredited programs have a level of knowledge and lab experiance Engineering expertise that others don't have.

The damage new engineers make is low in comparison to graduates with engineering degrees from non ABET accredited programs.

Many in the field of psychology will relay the same if APA accredited degrees have higher value.
RA is very good mark of quality but we do make selection among RA and PA (ABET) degree holders.

And this is justified by the additional requirements that ABET accredited schools have to meet and implement in their curriculum.

Example

Drexel University's College of Engineering - an internationally recognized leader in engineering education. It is the third largest private engineering college in the US, with numerous faculty recognitions, highly ranked programs and research accomplishments. Its curricula are accredited by ABET, the leading authority on educational standards for the engineering and science professions.

The graduates from this program are head and sholders above many others, this is a fact in my company.

is this discrimination to hire only ABET accredited degreed persons.

Our adds are clear ABET accredited degree preferred.

We discriminate all the time.

Learner

 

Russ,

Your statement doesn't make sense to me. Discriminating based on education is a primary criteria used for many job openings. As far as new graduate positions, it is typically the primary criteria used for narrowing down the field of applicants. I can't imagine that your interpretation is correct. Can you please reference the source of information?

 

Virginia International University New institution that appears to be legitimate. Not a degree mill under Oregon law. Degrees not valid in Oregon owing to lack of accreditation or ODA approval.

------
What is your opinion on this write-up?

VIU is a recognized institution, all of our programs, including Diploma and Certificate courses were aproved by the State Board of Education of Virginia. However, the real application depends on the policy of the school where credits will be transferred to."

Learner

 

What's the big deal?

If I am not mistaken, Russ seems to be selectively citing provisions of Oregon SB1039. As I understand it, the provisions that Russ is citing apply to specifically to religious schools in Oregon. They do not apply to unaccredited schools generally. Key points:

(1) An Oregon school that only offers degrees in "theology or religious occupations" can claim an exemption from the normal ODA degree rules.

(2) To claim the religious exemption, the school must meet a rather long list of conditions.

One of these conditions is that the school must not allow more than 25% degree credit by challenge exams. Russ previously described this as an example of an ODA double standard, since accredited schools don't have to meet it. However, it is not an accredited vs. unaccredited issue; it is an religious-exempt vs. non-exempt issue. In fact, the law restricts religious-exempt schools in many ways that do not apply to non-exempt schools. For example, religious-exempt schools cannot be for-profit, or offer degrees in non-religious fields. But this has no bearing on unaccredited schools in general.

(3) According to Section 11, employers are not allowed to discriminate against degrees from Oregon religious-exempt schools in their hiring, promotion, or tuition reimbursement practices if the employer does not require a degree with a specific title. If the employer needs a degree in a specific field (e.g. business, engineering, accounting), then this law does not apply.

Russ incorrectly states that the law applies to a "religious degree from an unaccredited (or accredited) school". In fact, it applies only to Oregon religious-exempt schools. The law does not apply to religious degrees from other schools (whether accredited or not), unless they have specifically pursued an Oregon religious exemption.


I question whether there is anything really new or unusual in the Oregon law. Other states have religious exemptions too.

 

No problem for employers

But the Oregon rules do not restrict you, as an employer, in any way.

The only restrictions are on your prospective employees. They will now be required to notify you (as a prospective employer) if their academic degrees do not meet state standards on the basis of accreditation, ODA approval, or religious exemption.

Oregon employers (such as yourself) will now receive extra information about their job applicants. It is quite possible that many employers will appreciate this information. However, the fact remains that you (as an employer) are completely free to disregard this extra information if you believe it to be useless or irrelevant.

So how are you, as an employer, negatively affected?

 

"Unlawful to Discriminate Against Unaccredited Degrees" - Wow! What a ridiculous statement (of portentous wishful thinking), which, of course, is nowhere to be found written in law. It exists in the fertile imaginations of some millists and profiteers from unaccredited entities who like to masquerade their deceptive businesses as legitimate schools.

You are NOT mistaken, CalDog. All that you stated in your post above is accurate and factually true.

No surprise here. An analysis of several of Russ's past and present posts in this forum shows that this is something he engages in quite often.

Muddy the waters and hope that no one notices. Fat chance!

Quite true, as a simple reading and analysis of the actual text of the Oregon statute shows.

My guess is that Russ probably knew that the excerpt he used in his thread-starting post had to do with Oregon's religious-exempt vs. non-exempt issue, not unaccredited versus accredited. But why miss an opportunity to sling unproven hyperbole, sow confusion and engage in unfettered mischaracterizations?

Russ: "Unlawful to Discriminate Against Unaccredited Degrees."

Me: Says who? where? when? how? why? Dream on!

Thanks.

 

Russ
"In other words, if an employer requires a BA/BS degree for a entry level position the employer would be prohibited from disqualifying a candidate based on an unaccredited degree."

Great idea why not put it to the test!

 

CalDog is confused...

Russ, don't you realize that these two paragraphs, which you posted at the beginning of this thread, directly contradict each other?

Your second paragraph says that employers should be allowed to determine the qualifications of our employees themselves.

But your first paragraph says that employers should not be allowed to discriminate against those with unaccredited degrees.

Let's suppose that I (as an employer) work in engineering. As you probably know, ABET-accredited degrees have prestige in the engineering market, and the lack of one is (in all states) a serious or fatal obstacle to professional licensure. So let's suppose that I would like to discriminate in favor of ABET degrees. Based on your second paragraph, I clearly have the right to do so. But your first paragraph, just as clearly, denies me that right.

So what should I (as an employer) be allowed to do? The obvious contradiction has left me genuinely confused as to your position.

 

Hey, Lerner... stop cross-posting. You made this exact same post in another thread.

And, my, hasn't your English suddenly improved. Can you explain that?

 

The troll peeks his head out once again from under the bridge!

 

I taught as an adjunct at VIU from 2001 - 2003. It is a little school set up by foreigners to train foreign students, most of whom return to their countries. Their quest for accreditation was crippled when 9/11 happened. Suddenly, students couldn't get here, and those that went home couldn't get back. Enrollments dropped and they've struggled with cash ever since. Because I no longer teach there, I don't know what is currently happening.

VIU is very legitimate. Whether or not it will be accredited is another matter, which severely limits the utility of the degrees and credits they issue. (And yes, James Crabb, I had conversations with students, faculty and administration all the time regarding this matter. You and your board's speculative assholes can't get anything right, can you?)

 

Which one? I see two.

 

Working through DesElms's posts has meant a lot of reading for Lerner.

A LOT of reading!!

 

My english is always better when I copy and paste from other treads at other sites.

I did this because here I could get the real answers good or bad.
So who ever posted this on another chanel had better English skills then my.

I do find this interesting that your radar is super sentative and
this is in a good way, wile I have better idea now about legit or not legit operations I still may initially fall once in a wile in to one of their deceptions, so i come here and ask the questions and find hoping to get credible answers.

Not only in order to find a good post graduate program for my self and answers for my friends but DL and this forum became an important in my life, and I do have life.

Learner

 

Thank you for catching my error! I hate when I miscount my trolls..lets just hope I do a better job with my money.

 

Oregon nondiscrimination

I need to add a clarification to Russ's generally accurate but incomplete original post about how Oregon law treats unaccredited religious degrees. Oregon law does indeed say that employers must treat certain religious degrees the same way that they treat state-approved secular degrees, but ONLY if those religious degrees meet state requirements for schools of that nature.

In Oregon this is called a religious exemption, but involves a significant showing that the school is the real thing. See 2005 Senate Bill 1039 Enrolled, from the Oregon legislative assembly, for the two pages of standards (too long to post here).

 

Re: Oregon nondiscrimination

Isn't the law contradicting itself?

If the exempted standards are so important that secular schools can't be permitted to operate without meeting them, then how can they simultaneously be so unimportant that employers are committing illegal discrimination if they notice that they haven't been met by exempt religious schools.