Vancouver University

Which is the logo on their seal.

 

If you have a degree from a degree mill then does that mean instead of y'all they say youse'all?

 

Roy: Yeah. All the way to the bank.

 

The better question is: What is the relationship between the six Bear-wannabes who run this site and Lansbridge University? LU has the same "accreditation" (Canadian provincial) as VU (http://www.lansbridge.com/admissions/accreditation.shtml) but somehow warrants a major splash on your "featured schools" page. Do the Cubbies have their little paws in the honey pot?

 

Six wannabe Bears? Who are these? I don't think the Gang Of Six exists any more.

Perhaps the degreeinfo membership grades should be extended -- "Senior Member" to be followed by "Wannabe" when one achieves the appropriate level of sycophancy?

 

Lansbridge was encouraged by the New Brunswick government and authorized by them under legislation.

The British Columbia government has tried to shut down Vancouver University because in the government's opinion they are operating without authorization.

Same thing to you. I detect at least a subtle difference.

I also recall Lansbridge being met with a certain degree of skepticism in the forums.

 

I note that you're still dodging the reasonable questions and trying to distract from that fact this time by throwing out insult and innuendo.

 

Are you claiming that Vancouver University sought provincial authorization to function as a university and to grant degrees? If so, when was that authorization sought and who ultimately granted it?

Are you claiming that VU was required to meet BC provincial higher education standards? If so, what standards was it required to meet?

Are you claiming that VU underwent some kind of external assessment to ensure that the standards were in fact met? If so, who performed that assessment, how was it performed and how may we verify the results?

Lansbridge is acknowledged by the New Brunswick minister of education as having met the requirements of the New Brunswick Degree Granting Act. What British Columbia higher education regulatory acts does VU satisfy, and which provincial education authorities may we contact to verify this information?

 

The politics revolving around this topic is beyond me, but how would VU benefit as a 'Mill' if they were a registered Canadian charity?

 

Profit isn't the only motive of people running schools. There is also that human factor called satisfaction, around which our economy revolves.

Not specific to VU, of which I have no direct knowledge, but the people who run non-profit organizations aren't monks. They are usually paid, sometimes handsomely.

 

Few years ago I was doing research about Vancouver university, before enrolling, I sent a letter to the Ministry of Education of BC about Vancouver University. In the letter, I was given the same answer, Vancouver University is not authorized to grant degrees in the province of BC. I gave them a call several times and the same person answered the phone, it seems to me like a one guy operation. The staff member (may be the president) told me that they don't have faculty members and I had to get my own supervisor, all they do is to grant the degree based on your work at another university or institution. He mentioned that they were associated with some institutions, but none of them were universities. When I asked facts about accreditation, I was given the web site as a reference. The website is hosted by a free community server that gives an indication of the quality of the institution. Few years ago, a friend of mine got his bachelors degree in Computer Science from Vancouver based on his Oracle certification, his degree was good enough to deceive an american employer in the US and he was hired based on this degree, however, he was fired recently but my friend never told me the reason.

 

'Public School Montessorian', a publication for Montessori teachers, had a run-in with VU in 2000-1. They had questions about VU, and got into an extended exchange with VU operator Raymond Rogers and perhaps several of his associates. Here's some of it:

http://www.jolapub.com/401vanuarticles.htm

 

Read it and weep VU. Now piss off and stop wasting bandwidth.

Cheers,

George

 

Of course I'm not a lawyer but it would sure seem to strongly indicate that Vancouver University may be an illegal operation.

 

It seems that they have a license to operate a TESL and a montessori school. They claim that they have the right to grant degrees since there is no law that says that they can't. Degrees won't be recognized by the minister of education of any province in Canada and therefore are virtually useless, however, they can deceive few people because of its fancy name and their efforts to be listed in quite few websites as a "credible university" http://www.city.vancouver.bc.ca/education.htm#unis

 

I’ve obtained a complete copy of the Oral Reasons for Judgment by Judge Maczko, stating his reasons for denying the interim injunction against Vancouver U. It’s not exactly the ringing endorsement I imagined from reading the VU website. However, I think it does, on the whole, support the conclusion that VU is not a “mill,” as some here have suggested.

Specifically, the judge details the way VU operates, which makes it akin to e.g., Charter Oaks, Excelsior, etc., in that coursework at VU or other institutions is evaluated. There is no indication that diplomas are simply sold. Further, VU has been operating for the last 30 years (THIRTY years!), apparently for most of that time with tacit ministry approval. In fact, Dr. Rodgers apparently has been inviting ministry officials to commencement exercises since VU’s inception. Such openness is hardly characteristic of a mill.

Apparently the government regarded the University Act as a “dead letter” until recently, hence the current cloud on VU’s authorization. Hopefully Dr. Rodgers will take advantage of the opportunity the new BC legislation will present to get a formal, positive government declaration of VU’s standing.

(I asked for copies of this judgment from both VU and the BC PPSEC, but received nothing. I got this copy from Alan Contreras, Administrator of the Oregon Office of Degree Authorization. Although I’m not a big fan of Oregon’s education policies, or of bureaucrats in general, I’ve got to thank him publicly for being so accessible and responsive to public comment and inquiry, even from outside his own state.)

Due to space considerations, I’ll include the entire opinion in the next post.

 

Sounds reasonable. Allowed to operate with full knowledge of the BC government for 30 years, I can see the judges point.

It still has no oversight, with any standards set by the operators.

Good research.

 

Date: 20020109
Docket: L011487
L002730
Registry: Vancouver

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA
IN THE MATTER OF THE UNIVERSITY ACT, R.S.B.C. 1996, C. 468

Oral Reasons for Judgment
Mr. Justice Maczko
Pronounced in Chambers
January 9, 2002

BETWEEN:

ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR BRITISH COLUMBIA, on behalf of the
MINISTER OF ADVANCED EDUCATION, TRAINING AND TECHNOLOGY

PETITIONER

AND:

DR. RAYMOND S. RODGERS; THE VANCOUVER UNIVERSITY COLLEGES SOCIETY; GEO VANCOUVER UNIVERSITY COLLEGES CORPORATION; WHETHAM COLLEGE; JOHN DOE; JOHN DOE INC.; JOHN DOE SOCIETY and other persons names unknown who offer degrees in British Columbia contrary to s. 67(2) of the University Act

RESPONDENTS


Counsel for Petitioner: N. Brown

The Respondent Dr. R.S. Rodgers: On his own behalf



[1] THE COURT: This is an application by the Attorney General for British Columbia on behalf of the Minister of Advanced Education Training and Technology for an injunction and declaration to prohibit the respondents from issuing or purporting to issue university degrees.

[2] The respondents are a number of affiliated institutions (to which I will refer collectively as the “respondents”) including the Vancouver University Colleges Society and the GEO Vancouver University Colleges Corporation. Dr. Raymond Rodgers is the president of both these institutions.

[3] The respondent has been operating educational facilities in British Columbia for some 30 years and has been awarding degrees since 1984. The applicant now seeks to prohibit the respondent from granting degrees on the basis that it has no lawful authority to do so because it is contrary to the University Act.

[4] Section 67 of the University Act provides in part as follows:
(1) A person in British Columbia other than a university must not use or be known by the name of a university.

(2) A person must not in British Columbia hold itself out or be known as a university, or grant degrees in its own name except in accordance with powers granted under this Act.

[5] On its face, the respondents appear to be in breach of the statute. The respondent clearly holds itself out as a university and admitted that it grants degrees. The respondent has a complicated structure and I hope I can do justice to it with a short description.

[6] Students obtain a degree from Vancouver University by submitting to it all the courses the student has satisfactorily completed. The courses may have been taken at one of the institutions owned or approved by the respondent or the courses may have been taken at other institutions not affiliated with the respondent. The courses are evaluated and a decision is made determining whether the complement of courses qualifies for a degree. If so, the student will be awarded a degree and will pay $500, $1,000 or $2,000, depending on what level of degree is granted.

[7] It is unclear from the documents which of the entities actually grants the degree. However, I am informed, by Dr. Rodgers, that it is done by GEO Vancouver University Colleges Corporation.

[8] The legal argument made by Dr. Rodgers is that s. 67 of the University Act applies only to public institutions and not private institutions. He argues that this conclusion can be drawn from the context and the content of the Act. For example, the Act requires that all mortgages on universities must be approved by the government. It is improbable that such a provision would be applicable to a private institution that is not funded by the government. Dr. Rodgers argues that the University Act applies to public institutions and does not actually prohibit private institutions from issuing degrees.

[9] Dr. Rodgers also argues that these provisions of the University Act are contrary to the equality provisions of the Canadian Charter. For example, Phoenix University offers courses in British Columbia and issues a degree from the United States. The government takes the position that Phoenix is not subject to the statute because the degree is not issued in British Columbia. Dr. Rodgers argues that the respondent institutions offer courses in British Columbia and the degree is granted in British Columbia. The statute appears to treat similar American institutions more favourably than Canadian institutions.

[10] I consider the legal arguments to be tenuous and not likely to be successful at trial. However, I cannot say that they have no chance of success. The strength of the applicant’s case is one of the factors that I must take into account when deciding whether or not an interim injunction should be granted.

[11] The respondent argues that it wants to have a trial in which evidence can be called and full argument can be made.

[12] Interim injunctions are an equitable discretionary remedy and should only be granted where there is an urgent reason to do so. I have decided to exercise my discretion and deny the injunction, for the following reasons.

[13] An interim injunction would probably have the effect of putting the respondent out of business. This is a devastating consequence, which should not be visited on a party without being given a full opportunity to make its case to the court.

[14] There are some 50 or 60 people currently in the degree process at Vancouver University. It could have a serious effect on their education and careers if I grant the injunction. It would visit upon these people a serious unfairness if the respondent were later successful at trial.

[15] There are many people who have obtained degrees from Vancouver University and have established careers based on those degrees. If some of these people have jobs that require a degree, their employment may be jeopardized.

[16] The government argues that it has an interest in setting standards and assuring the public that those standards are being met. I agree that that is an important and worthy goal. The question is whether there is such urgency about this matter that it requires the extraordinary remedy of an interim injunction pending trial.

[17] One of the factors I must take into account is the timeliness with which the application was brought. The respondent has been an educational institution in the province for approximately 30 years and has been granting degrees since 1984. This has all been done with the knowledge of government.

[18] On May 5, 1984, Dr. Rodgers wrote to the Honourable Patrick McGreer who was then Minister of Universities. The final paragraph concluded as follows:

Since the government regards the legislation as a dead letter, we take it that we can accordingly meet the City University competition and commence to issue full-fledged degrees.

Since that time the respondent has invited numerous ministers to attend its degree-granting convocation.

[19] In 1992 the respondent applied to have a corporate name change from New Summits University College Corporation to GEO Vancouver University Colleges Corporation. The then Minister of Education, Tom Perry, wrote a response to Dr. Rodgers and stated that he was unable to advise the Registrar of Companies to permit the use of the term “university” in the proposed title. In spite of that letter, a certificate of name change was issued on July 29, 1991. The government says this was done in error.

[20] Be that as it may, it is clear that the government knew that the respondent was using the word “university” in its name and that it has been granting degrees since 1984. The respondent has been openly using the word “university” in its name and has been advertising on the Internet that it grants degrees.

[21] Nothing has been done to stop the respondent from using the work “university” or granting degrees for at least 20 years.

[22] I can only conclude that if this problem has existed for 20 years with no action by government, there are no dire consequences that will flow from not issuing an injunction prior to trial. On the other hand, the effect of an injunction could be devastating to the respondent and some of its students.

[23] I conclude that on the balance of convenience, justice is best served by giving the respondent an opportunity to fully present and argue its case at trial before putting it out of business.

[24] The application for an interim injunction is denied.


/s/
The Honourable Mr. Justice Maczko

 

I love being right.

 

Yes, good call.