What does it mean to be CA State Approved

Rich, I would like you to look closely at your responses to my post. My post was merely a set of facts, with no conclusions, assertions, or judgments. They may have had direct bearing on your study, maybe not. I explained that I do not know the construct of your study and that the facts provided surround your study. The proper response of a scientist would have been to receive the data and discuss it in that context with an open mind. Instead, you immediately felt impugned, reacting with defensive insults to my abilities. Your reaction clearly illustrates some of the problems that have been described and unfortunately it detracts immensely from your usefuleness. You could view this as a test Rich, and I'm afraid you have failed.

I don't have anything more to say to you on the matter unless you continue some sort of diatribe.

 

typo correction: "...detracts immensely from your usefulness."

 

Damn right!

Get off your big fat bloated butt Douglas, lose this "rationality" crap of yours, and start posting diatribes.

 

Based on your previous posts (in support of kf5k's statements that the study was bogus), I have to say nonsense.

I'll ask my question again, what was the intended point? It seemed to insinuate that a larger percentage of the population would be required. Apparently you had doubts as to the veracity of that position so that you didn't say it, you merely implied it. Perhaps I'm mistaken? If so, what was the intended point?

 

Actually, you led off with an utterly false premise (regarding "proving" hypotheses). Remarkably, "James" made the exact same mistake. What a coincidence.

You previously questioned sample size, then provided some data. You also provided your take on "James":

Rich, I think James is suggesting that the number of responses you received from your research may not have been a representative sample of the universe of registered corporations. Therefore, inferences made from the limited data you received would be a scientifically derived guess. A little more information concerning the research and its construct would be useful.

This isn't just "merely a set of facts." It is a conclusion. I have to assume you agree with it since you wrote it and followed up with some statistics.

And since your comments about statistical inference are so utterly wrong, you choose instead to characterize me. Thanks for adding a bunch to the discussion.

 

I'm not entirely sure that I agree with that. I kind of like California's system.

I think that given the number of non-accredited degree-granting schools in California, there have been surprisingly few blatant mills. Most of the places that one might call 'mills' exist under religious exemptions.

I think that represented their hopes and intentions for the approved sector. But there's no evidence that it was ever realized in practice.

Which isn't necessarily a bad thing. The BPPVE tries to protect consumers against scams and fly-by-night operators that might dissapear with their students' tuition. But they aren't an accreditor in the sense that WASC is. I think that making it clear that their approval is a consumer protection matter more than an academic imprimatur is probably a good idea.

Here on Degreeinfo we see many attempts to equate CA-approval with accreditation (including this very thread). Think of what that screeching would sound like if the approval process was moved to the state's education department.

I know of no evidence that today's CA-approved schools are any less credible than those in the past. I don't think that state approval has been watered down at all. It's just being presented to the public more realistically. State approval never was a state of academic distinction, not even close. It was never much different than it is today.

I think that they haven't done too badly.

They could appropriate more money to the BPPVE and give it some enforcement powers and legal staff. But given the state's current budget problems, that's just not gonna happen.

Other than that, it's probably a good thing that the legislators have largely ignored the non-accredited degree-granting sector. Any intervention on their part would be very politicized, and would either serve to suppress the sector or to present the appearance that it's something that it isn't. (Probably both.)

I like the fact that people can start institutes and graduate schools relatively easily. I simply love the grassroots scholarship that it represents, the space for experiment that it provides. Intellectual laissez faire. As a noted proponent of free enterprise wrote: "Let a thousand flowers bloom, let a thousand schools of thought contend".

But the resulting schools have to be treated realistically and can't be made into something that they are not. If a particular school is truly good, it's good because of its own individual accomplishments, not because of the general state-approval that it bears. A neighboring school with exactly the same approval might be totally lame.

I think that all in all, they do OK. Or they have until recently. They balance freedom and regulation quite well, and place the balance roughly where I would. In other words, if I ran the bureau, I'd approve pretty much what they approve and reject what they reject. They skim out the scams pretty effectively, but otherwise give educational entrepeneurs a lot of room to improvise.

I just don't think that we should follow Kirkland and James into treating the BPPVE as a substitute-accreditor and then resenting them when they let us down by not being what they never were.

I don't make a distinction between "approval" and "licensing". It's all the same to me.

I think that the moral here is that we have to consider these schools in a case-by-case manner, on the basis of their own unique characteristics and accomplishments.

We shouldn't read too much into the mere fact that they are approved, or try to generalize too broadly over that entire class. To me, part of the attraction of the CA-approved class is precisely the tremendous variety of what it contains. It gives people the opportunity to put their ideas into practice, even if their vision differs from that of the accreditors. But the worth of whatever they create remains to be determined and can't simply be assumed.

Tht's my biggest argument with James and Kirkland.

Like them I'm not "RA-only". Like them I really do like some CA-approved schools.

But in direct contradiction to them, I discuss particular schools and don't try to argue in terms of the whole CA-approved class itself. They seem to want to argue that CA-approval itself constitutes a form of accreditation, so that every school that's approved is automatically accredited along with it. Then they turn to trying to collapse the utility and quality distinctions.

I'm not going to follow them there, except on a case-by-case basis for individual schools.

 

I have only had an undergraduate statistics course. Before anyone can accurately comment on Rich's study they would have to know how he sampled Random, Stratified, Cluster, etc., standard deviation, and the many other variables that go along with statistics.

If this is an inferential (infer) statistics study then it is the probability of an event occurring based on samples to populations, and is different than descriptive statistics that collect, organize and present data.

My .02,

Scott

 

Well presented arguments Bill. I tend not to dismiss the California Education Code under which CA schools are approved. The Code is clear that approval exists as both academic and consumer protection. Not many States that I'm aware of use a set of regulations this extensive or a process so clearly definitive. I haven't come across any hard evidence to suggest that the BPPVE isn't doing its job although budget cuts are effecting lots of govt. organizations. I think there are efficiencies and advantages to consumers for recognizing the California Approval process as a minimum standard for certain applications. (e.g. I believe no other State uses an approval system to qualify graduates to practice counseling and law). I see this system as more than a business license and with more utility. I do see this as similar to accreditation since the process includes institutional review and educator inspection teams evaluating all academic programs and departments, faculty, and financial viability.

 

Many states use approval systems, many of them much more stringent than California's. New York and Texas come to mind. Florida's is pretty tough, too.

In fact, it is the states without such processes that help create the degree mill problems we see. States like South Dakota, Wyoming, Hawaii, Louisiana, and, yes, even California, have been havens for degree mills in the past. California did a lot to eliminate the worst of theirs with the elimination of the Authorized category. Still, it allows some very bad schools to operate, schools that would not be able to do so in many other states. (It also allows many good schools to operate without recognized accreditation, some of which would also not be able to operate elsewhere--a dual-edged sword.) To wit:

California allows Kennedy-Western to operate.

It allows Pacific Western and others "dual operate," offering degrees not approved by the state from operations inside the state.

It has allowed Century University to be run from the state. (Yes, Century has its offices in New Mexico. And MIGS had its offices in Florida, but that didn't stop Texas from taking action based on a statement in a lawsuit by MIGS saying they had an office in Texas. That would not have happened if Serna's office was in California.)

Then there is the highly subjective nature of the quality of some approved schools. That is much more difficult to establish and varies from observer to observer.

I'd be a lot happier if California required schools to be on an accreditation track and to become properly accredited within a reasonable timeframe. Then it could concentrate on the few exceptions that would warrant an exemption from that requirement. (Bill Dayson often makes the case for some of these schools--no argument from me.) But to allow schools like SCUPS, Pacific Western, Frederick Taylor, and many others to operate indefinitely doesn't seem to serve anyone. Quite the opposite.

"Of course, that's just my opinion. I could be wrong."
(Dennis Miller)

 

Kirkland: (e.g. I believe no other State uses an approval system to qualify graduates to practice counseling and law)

Actually, Alabama, Tennessee, Massachucetts...Georgia? all have "approved" but not "accredited" law schools. These are residental schools, not D/L however.

 

The Massachusetts School of Law (one of the 2 non-ABA law schools in Massachusetts, Southern New England School of Law being the other) is regionally accredited, they just don't have ABA-approval. Southern New England was going for RA, but I haven't really followed their progress.

 

Yes, I'm aware that NY is a recognized accreditor (grandfathered into the existing Federal Law which I believe excludes all other States from becoming accreditors). If I get some free time, I'll look at the statutes of these and some other States and report on my findings.

 

I heard a story a couple of years ago that SNESL was having some financial problems and might be bought up by UMass (as there is no state law school in Massachusetts). The story was that it would become attached to the UMass-Dartmouth campus.
I have no idea if this was really being discussed or just a wild rumor. They probably spent all the money on Bulgers severance package anyway.
Jack

 

ABA accreditation is the accreditation that actually MATTERS for a law school. I know of no Board of Bar Examiners, accredited law school, or government agency that even refers to any other accrediting body regarding the JD. Of course, as consumer protection matter, other accreditation DOES matter.