what is really accredited?

To make this clear again, I am not a so-called diploma mill supporter. In fact what I am after is a way that would discredit them by addressing the issues that they award their degrees on.

In other words, if the issue is addressed with high standards then people would not want to graduate from them and would choose the school that follow proper procedures.

You need to understand the issue here. If more people get degrees from these substandard schools then over time their acceptance would go up and then the education standard will drop.

The best way to address this is to find ways that can verify learning with a high standard and make sure it is properly recognized. We should allow the agencies or schools with good intention prove themselves and not bundle everyone together.

I am not sure which one is good and which one is bad, I just do not think its fair to simply say everyone is bad. This is the core of my argument all along.

 

Hi Jeff:

I am not an advocate of St. Regis at all. I just said before that they seem to have interesting stuff about how to evaluate experience based learning.

But do you know if they would not allow someone to scrutinize them? It seem you are assuming here.

If they are really accredited by a government then they must have been scrutinized then. If not then we have to now question the whole accreditation process not just in Liberia but also here in the US.

 

First, I don't believe that they are really accredited by "the government" of Liberia. The Liberian embassy has said they know nothing about it.

Second, of course the would bring into question the accrediation "process" in Liberia. In fact, I haven't seen any evidence that under the Taylor regime, the "process" was any more than one person handing another person a check.

I am at a loss as to how this would even come remotely close to bringing into question the accreditation process in the U.S.

 

Hi Jeff:

I think you answered my question then. In other words if they are not accredited then we do not need to question the liberian accreditation process. I am not questioning the US process either, I do think the US has a first quality process but every process does have some faults. In fact the law itself does give room for new ideas and approaches. Its people who kind of hold on to the way to do things.

I have a friend who has a degree from a university in Oregon and before I knew he had a degree, I taught he was the most illogical person at his work. When I found out he had the degree, I was very surprised.

I have another friend from India who does not have a degree but some 3 year diploma and he is very good at his job in terms of knowledge and approach.

So the system need to address the overall person and make them both ready for the job and further academics.. Just a matter of balance.

 

Then what's your objection to the current system? Universities enforce academic standards on their graduates, and the accreditors, along with the broader responses of the professional and academic communities, verifies that the universities themselves are credible.

Why are you arguing so passionately for something that already exists?

Who has ever said that all schools or all accreditors are bad? That's just a straw man, isn't it?

Your real objection seems to be that certain individual schools and/or accreditors aren't getting the recognition that you think they deserve.

Well, if you want to argue their case, you will have to name them and then present some persuasive arguments in their behalf.

 

Hi Bill:

Maybe you are misunderstanding, I was not asking a question in defence of anyone or school.

My question is how do you determine if an accrediting agency is legal or illegal. You seem to be answering my question on the pretense that I have some motivation to promote new accrediting standards or agency. No, thats not what I am saying.

I am saying that we should not bundle all the new ones and say they are diploma mills related. There are some good ones that are not directly US DOE recognised and Dr. Bear acknowledged that too.

I am just asking for objectivity here. If a specific agency is bad, they are bad but if they are trying to honestly achieve something give them a chance to prove themselves.

 

Perhaps. Would you care to provide the names of some of these legitimate unrecognized accreditors, as well as a few reasons why you belie they are legitimate?

 

Yes, there are many people without a degree who have far more knowledge and ability than the average college graduate.

What is your point?

Perhaps we should grant these people a degree? Well, OK, but how are we going to determine who "these people" are?

Well, maybe they could take exams, where appropriate, or show a compilation of evidence -- some might call it a portfolio -- of the achievement they have accomplished that is equivalent to a degree.

What exactly are you advocating that is not currently available?

As to your question about how to determine whether an accrediting body is legal, why in the world would it make any difference? If some dictator decides that he can make a quick buck by setting up a legal accrediting agency for any diploma mill who will pay him a few thousands dollars, does that make it a legititimate accrediting agency?

 

Frankly, I find your posts difficult to understand.

How could an American accrediting agency be illegal? What law would it be violating?

The critical question for accreditors is credibility, not legality.

I don't think that anyone has ever suggested that all new and/or unrecognized accreditors are diploma mill related.

Great. If anyone thinks that any unrecognized accreditor out there is credible, then by all means they should attempt to make a persuasive case for it.

But there's no reason why anyone else should believe in its value until that case is successfully made.

 

That was answered at the very beginning of this thread. What was it exactly that you didn't like/understand about Dr. Bear's answer?

P.S. There you go again with that legal/illegal stuff again. Do you really mean what you say?

 

umm...

Is this what's going on?

 

Re: umm...

Speaking for myself, the answer is "yes." BTW, I like the illustration so much I've decided to name him "Henrik."
Jack

 

Well, I have had many asnwers and I think the one that make the most sense is Dr. John Bear's.

I get the impression once I ask the question is that people think I am promoting the concept of new accrediting agency or diploma mills. I was just trying to ask a simple question.

I must make one thing clear, I do believe in high standard of education but I think there is always room for improvement without comprising standards.

Do when I talk about legal and illegal or experienced base learning, I am just explore as a lay person. I have no affiliation with any school or association.

I am just trying to engage in an open discussion. I think if people focus more on the issue than wondering what is my motivation then we could achieve a lot more

 

Accredited means an agency directly recognize by the US DOE. Anything else is not accredited.

 

Well, I would agree except that this issue has been beaten absolutely to death in thousands of messages on this very board... and nearly 100% of the time, the people asking questions and arguing the way you are end up being degree mill apologists.

The problem with assuming all new accreditors are sincere is that it simply isn't true. The majority of new accreditors don't even exist except on someone's web server.

When a new accreditor appears and protests its legitimacy, DegreeInfo regulars check it out. Without fail, as the questions about legitimacy, academic integrity, quality standards, relationship with various unwonderful schools, etc get more detailed, the answers get more evasive, until the accreditor either stops responding entirely or is so evasive that it's clear that the operation is completely fraudulent.

You may not have the benefit of having seen all of this firsthand, but I assure you, that's pretty much what it is.

Now, if a new accreditor showed up, answered all the questions, was open about its process and discussed its concepts without evasiveness and with a genuine desire to create quality oversight -- AND wasn't involved in accrediting an unwonderful school -- then there would be something to look at.

But, at that point, there'd be little point that I could see, because we already have DETC and the regionals and various professional and trade accreditors that fill that niche.

 

Carlos Lorie: "Accredited means an agency directly recognize by the US DOE. Anything else is not accredited."

John Bear: No, not really. Used to be, but not for the last 4 or 5 years.

The US DOE recognizes accreditors based on their compliance with various federal loan and grant programs. Some major and utterly respectable accreditors (including AACSB, the most prestigious business accreditor), the American Veterinary Association, etc., have chosen not to follow US DOE guidelines, and are no longer recognized.

Recognized, or generally accepted ("GAAP") accreditation in the US means those recognized by CHEA (www.chea.org). While there are CHEA ones that are non-DOE, I don't think there are anby DOE that aren't CHEA.

 

From the Oregon ODA site: "Degrees from closed or merged schools that were accredited by a U.S. Dept. of Education-recognized accreditor at the time the degree was earned are legal for use as credentials in Oregon. "

 

Seem very interesting.

Is someone on here responsible to call these agencies/school and find out wether they are open minded? I just get the impression that people here assume a lot more than get facts.

Yes, there is a lot of bogus but that does not mean there can't ones that are trying to be legit. My point is that we should not jump to conclusion without facts.

Is CHEA recognized agencies accepted in Oregon as Legitimate accreditors?

In trying to be uobjective you encourage the diploma mills in the first place. Since there is room for flexibility and growth and most people kind of stick with the traditional approach. There is always room for someone to say that you have no credibility to say their approach is wrong.

I think it all comes down to revenue and not the focus on quality education. Diploma mill try to make quick money, while the traditional school want to make big money so no way to approach the process a different way, while enhance how education is given.

I would argue based on the TESC model that if a person can earn enough credit by whatever means and document it properly they should be able to earn a degree. I Iwould take from a different angle that focuses on the foundation plus the body of knowledge within the major.

 

hogwash

Is someone on here responsible to call these agencies/school and find out wether they are open minded? I just get the impression that people here assume a lot more than get facts.

Is CHEA recognized agencies accepted in Oregon as Legitimate accreditors?

...

I think it all comes down to revenue and not the focus on quality education. Diploma mill try to make quick money, while the traditional school want to make big money so no way to approach the process a different way, while enhance how education is given.

You might consider looking into the question of Oregon's acceptance of CHEA accreditation by looking at State of Oregon web sites.

Your question about someone's charge being to evaluate the open-mindedness of agencies/schools is surprising. Do you understand that this is a discussion forum, not a well-organized information gathering collaboration? (The posters are not members of a research team, for example.)

The people who create diploma mills are dishonest. Their activities are criminal in most states. Your nearly unparsable comment comparing diploma mills and real universities is complete hogwash. In my experience, faculty at RA universities take teaching and education seriously. And if you're about to suggest that research anticorrelates with a passion for teaching, please read Tom Devlin's op-ed piece here: http://www.physics.rutgers.edu/~devlin/op-ed.html

G

 

Galanga:

I am not sure what you are saying. The word hogwash is not a real english word anyway.

Again, I will say that I am not supporting any diploma mill or accrediting agency. The point I am making is that there always room from something new and as long as a person is honest and genuine they should be treated as such.


My question to start is very simple. What is considered legal accreditation? Is it illegal for a husband to accredit a wife's school or what? Maybe recognition is totally another issue but what is legal?

In respect to the forum, I had to ask if someone is gathering information because it seem that people jump to conclusion that certain type of schools are diploma mills. How do you determine that they are? I am sure there is a lot of them but can you confirm which one is a diploma mill? If you argue that its wrong to award a degree based on experience, then TESC is a diploma mill because they allow a person to get a degree 100% based on experience. Can everyone qualify? no. So lets focus on the process by which the degrees are given and not the means of learning. If we say that a resume should not be the only means to get a degree I 100% agree. The person needs to prove what they know. I sincerely believe that.

I am not advocating anything, I am just asking a question to the forum. If you do not have a proper answer then you do not need to reply.