Vancouver University

I re-read this whole thread and as of today I must admit the facts weigh stonger with VU than everyone else's documented opinion(and some people in this thread outright calling it a mill after 30yrs of operation? Sorry think of a new word). Sometimes I feel people here seem to overstate how important their opinion really is, or what it really matters outside this universe we call degreeinfo.com.

Flamebait Disclaimer: Never even heard of this school until this thread started, I can't point Vancouver out on a map, and I don't even know who the president of Canada is.

 

Elizabeth R.

Well sort of.

 

What facts are those, Bob?

The school has never undergone any kind of formal accreditation process that I can see, it apparently operates in violation of British Columbia law, and it has little credibility in the wider academic and professional worlds that I'm aware of.

What facts do you have to rebut that?

How is that inconsistent with them being a mill?

My opinions are exactly that, and they probably have no importance at all. (Much like yours.)

But to suggest that somehow implies VU's legitimacy is a total non-sequitur.

BTW, please review the letter from Debbie Andersen of the Private Institutions and Sector Initiatives Branch of the BC Ministry of Advanced Education, posted above.

 

Note that the decision made by the judge was only to determine whether there would be a trial or a summary judgement.

He determined that the defence had a case with some merit, possibly minute.

All he did was decide not to decide. Not really a great victory, as portrayed on the website.

 

Sure, the facts are this, the Opinions reflected by Debbie Anderson's letter reflecting the office she represents were attempted to be enforced, they were denied by a real Canadian Judge (atleast temporarily and I agree not glowingly) and VU is still in business. Will they be enforced one day? Probably. Maybe. Maybe not. Until that day occurs all I have is Judge that said no. Factually.

I have reviewed VU's website, they are a touchy bunch it seems but now I see why when a good number of Monday morning quarterbacks pass judgement making even libelous statements publicly about a school they have maintained relatively unimpuned for 30yrs. This school isn't so black and white which is contrary to how many of the longer standing degreeinfo.com participants tend to think here.

Im not going to argue too much more than this and get sucked in, but I'll review this thread a few more times. I feel fairly unbiased and Im not really an "underdog" kind of person, but Im certainly not qualified to make a public statement about a 30yr old Canadian school with regards to legitimacy or good grief even stating its a "mill".

Thanks,

 

It has been 16 months since that judge's decision. Do we know if there has been anything done by the BC Attorney General or anyone else official since then?

John Bear (who has never called
VU a 'diploma mill' and has
no plans to)

 

Probably among the best unlicensed schools in the world without recognized accreditation. Remember that their claim to exemption from licensing as a school is that they don't actually teach any courses.

A Vancouver University degree plus 40 courses will get you a bachelors degree at most accredited US or Canadian universities.

 

Here is part of an email I received 05-05-2003 from Deborah Hull, Director, Private Institutions and Sector Initiatives Branch, Ministry of Advanced Education:

"...Further, the Degree Authorization Act (the Act) was introduced in the provincial legislature in 2002, to provide a mechanism for private and out-of-province post-secondary institutions to apply for Ministerial consent to grant degrees in British Columbia. The Act received Royal Assent in May 2002, and will come into effect later this spring. Under the Act, Vancouver University would have to undergo a quality assessment process in order to obtain Ministerial consent to grant degrees in British Columbia. "

So I think the answer is: Nothing. But come later this spring...look out Dr. Rodgers.

 

The text of Judge Maczko's ruling contains a lot of interesting material on VU's status:

[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.

This appears to dispose of the argument that VU is legal because it simply grants degrees and doesn't offer classes. The Act expressly prohibits using the name "university" and granting degrees, except as allowed under the Act.

Here's VU's own explanation of its legal basis:

[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.

The Judge renders his own opinion of these arguments:

[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.

But despite the government having a strong case, the Judge decides to reject the motion for an interim injunction, because:

[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.

[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.

That doesn't sound like a very ringing endorsement of VU to me. In particular, the Judge didn't throw out the government's argument that VU was illegal. In fact, Justice Maczko explicitly said that he found the government's case strong. But he did say that Rogers had the right to be heard in court prior to his business being ordered shut down.