Victims of Diploma Mills?

Legitimately accredited schools that allow the use of tests (such as CLEP, DANTES, et al) are granting credit towards a degree after a student establishes-- by way of a properly-validated test--the same level of knowledge exhibited by the "average" undergraduate who's actually sat through the equivalent course. The tests may not be the end-all of assessment tools, but they have HUGE acceptance in traditional academia specifically because of their validity.

Portfolio Assessment work under the same theory; a student is provided an opportunity to establish mastery of a subject (equivalent to the level of knowledge necessary to pass the equivalent undergraduate course) without actually taking the class. Like the CLEPs and other standardized tests, it involves the application of specific standards by a "faculty consultant" with experience teaching the equivalent course.


The "Big Three" are unusual in that they don't limit the amount of credit available via nontraditional methods. But they're still required to apply generally accepted standards and valid methods in awarding credit or degrees. That's what their accreditation establishes to an otherwise unsuspecting universe of employers, graduate schools, and clients. That's the point of a degree-- it's certification that the graduate has demonstrated mastery of a particular breadth and depth of subjects in accordance with valid, accepted standards. Whether those standards have been met via testing, or by online classes, or by attendance in traditional classes makes no difference.

In an unaccredited institution, there's no such assurance that those generally-accepted standards have been applied.. hence, wide skepticism. Perhaps the education was fantastic. Perhaps the work was intense. But one still can't assume that it met the "baseline" required in an accredited institution absent evidence. Places like K-W show no such evidence; hence, the skepticism

Incidentally, those "fluff courses" are part of what external consumers expects from a well-rounded college graduate. I didn't like it, either.. but I understand the point. When I'm on a rating panel trying to select a new hire that I'll likely have to work next to for 20 years, I'd like some assurance that in addition to having breezed through the "important" accounting and criminal justice courses, he/she can also help with the year-end statistical reports, carry on a simple conversation in a second language, and write a report that won't need to be returned for corrections four or five times.

 

Many here should take lessons from the above post. Dennis has just made his point in a clear manner without being arrogant. I may disagree with him on some things, but he has just earned my respect which is something I do not have for some on this forum.

 

As in a civilized society a degree must represent a certain amount of coursework and knowledge attained, your personal feelings are irrelevant. However, I must agree with you; you have indeed earned a legitamate degree.

Society seems believe that approximately forty relevant equates to a legitimate undergraduate degree. K-W seems to think that it should only be four or five. Others believe one or none is acceptable. How many of these relevant, “non-fluff” courses do you think equates to a legitimate degree?

I guess you mean that these degrees are useful for securing employment, and I agree. However, why is that? Are they useful because they stand on their own merits or because they are mistaken for accredited degrees that required the proper amount and distribution of coursework? Would they be just as useful if a candidate for employment was truthful and disclosed that the degree was from an unaccredited institution and that the program only required four or five courses?

Many who pursue substandard degrees frequently justify them by stating they were solely for personal satisfaction. To me, this is the saddest justification of them all. Why should anyone revel in substandard achievement?

The way you have framed the argument, nothing is debatable. Who thinks that accreditation is absolutely everything? Moreover, it is not simply a matter of personal opinion. It is a matter of the overwhelming preponderance of informed opinion. That you admit you that would probably have went the same way even in light of knowing about other legitimate options speaks volumes. The fact of the matter is that schools like K-W are simply ludicrously easier, and that is irresistible to many people.

Georgia Tech and Excelsior may not be very close to each other, but schools like K-W aren't even on the same continuum.

Easy. That kid had to prove that he knew the subject matter for a required number and relevant distribution of courses.

You would be amazed and how many other legitimately accredited institutions aside from the Big 3 allow for portfolio assessment and credit by examination. The problem lies in the fact that most unaccredited schools make a mockery of the process thereby diminishing the public’s perception of the validity of these alternative means of earning credit.

An open mind is one thing; revisiting an issue ad nauseum is another. Many of us have looked at the issue of substandard and unaccredited schools from many perspectives for a very long time. Unless you can provide new, honest, and compelling arguments instead of the same tired and discredited justifications there really isn’t much to discuss, is there?

 

Discredited?

Is this the same as unaccredited, Gus?

 

It's not a matter of being "open-minded." Being open-minded doesn't mean uncritical acceptance.

 

California looks at the approved schools in their state, as do the other states that have approved schools. That you choose to ignore their view, and set yourself as the supreme judge of what is good and right is absurd. Your view is worth no more than any other, except in your own mind.

 

Weren't you setting your self up as the supreme judge against the Oregon ODA when in another thread you said,

?

 

"You" (meaning me) is used four times in three sentences. But it's not personal, right?

Even a casual observer of the times knows about the decline of the Approval process over the years. I've been looking at it since 1980, and I expressed an opinion. For that you write this flame? Perhaps you have something that shows I'm mistaken?

 

While we're on the subject, can anyone point to even one authoritative academic source that takes California approval seriously, or the approval of other degree mill havens? Even one? Hell, my dissertation treated it dispassionately, noting the remarkable level of acceptance of state-approved degrees by employers. But that's not good enough--I didn't express a judgment. But is there a source where this is discussed academically? I don't recall one.

 

Yes Nova Southeastern atleast has a provision for State Approved schools acceptance in their grad schools (business one I believe). That's the only one I know of though.

 

http://www.huizenga.nova.edu/admission/masters.cfm

I think the verbage might've changed a bit since I last looked at it. I could've sworn it said "State" approved at one time, they might be just talking about DETC or ACICS accred they're not really clear, but it says this:

Graduates of Non-Regionally Accredited Institutions

Applicants with an undergraduate GPA of 2.5 or greater on a 4.0 scale from non-regionally accredited institutions will be considered for admission. A GMAT score may be required at the discretion of the associate dean for academic affairs.

 

Interesting. I didn't know this. Does anyone else with contacts with NSU have information about this? I'm sure exceptions are made at many schools, but a "provision"? Again, very interesting.

I guess what I was driving at was some form of research or informed opinion. The only research I know of is John's survey of admissions officials, who demonstrably reject state-licensed and state-approved degrees.

I don't recall anything of the sort in academic journals during my literature review, but that doesn't mean there isn't something out there. But absent that, it remains clear that the gap between accredited schools and unaccredited schools is the real issue, and it is huge.

 

DETC also falls into the "Non-Regionally Accredited Institutions" category.