Wyoming Legislator Slams Accreditation

I think you've failed to make your case, counselor. If, that is, your case is to have the government snout as imprimatur to every educational papyrus.

What is "nothing but DISHONEST" is fraud with established legal remedy so that should not here be an issue.

Even here in Hamiltonian New York there are many schools with "seriously substandard programs". They are trade schools and business schools offering diplomas of varied sort. They serve our overregulated and highly corrupt State quite well.

I don't know who russ is or what are his(?) motives but I don't see him arguing for degree mills.

I suggest a new thread with russ and Rich each stating their positions.

 

Still trying to sell cow dung as silver, I see.

But ask youself this question: WHY do students seek unaccredited degrees?

There are two obvious answers:

1) Because they want a program not otherwise available (i.e. a purely D/L S.J.D. or engineering degree, or

2) Because they want a credential which will SOUND like an accepted degree but not require all that nasty work.

I said that a school that remains unaccredited is suspect. I did NOT say that all unaccredited institutions are fraudulent. But if a institution chooses to REMAIN unaccredited, that school and its graduates had better be prepared to produce a pretty solid set of reasons for their choice.

See, bottom line, what you really want to do is claim that an unaccredited degree is the equivalent of the same degree from an accredited institution. In CERTAIN cases that may be true but in MOST cases it simply is not. And, as I said before, claiming on sophistical grounds that the degrees are equal is DISHONEST whatever you think the law may say about your rights.

All of your argument is directed toward this ultimate end; to deceive people into thinking that you have accomplished something that you in fact have not. That, too, is DISHONEST. If you do it for money, it is FRAUD.

That is why Oregon and other states have begun to restrict such claims. These states are right to do so. In Oregon's case, the only question is, "How?"

They'll get there.

 

Another shining example of crushing logic. Multiple observations, carefully crafted into a sound theory, testing a hypothesis set forth on the basis of a rational examination of the issues at hand.

It is truly amazing to watch.

 

Where is the basis for this? What information do you have that shows the impact of accreditation's cost on a school's decision not to pursue it? For example:

1. Studies (articles disserations, etc.) that have measured this effect.

2. Position statements by accrediting agencies.

3. Examples of schools that have abandoned their accreditation specifically because of the costs involved.

I've never seen an example of a legitimate school that eschews accreditation because of costs. It is, however, a common claim of degree mills.

If accreditation is so costly, why do so many schools pursue it? Even long-standing, unaccredited, DL schools have had a change of heart lately. Southwest University and CCU were successful, Century and SCUPS were not. But all tried.

There is no excuse anymore for not pursuing accreditation. If a school cannot support it financially, that school is in such dire straits as to not be trusted by potential students.

 

Is this reply to me? I've not tried to sell anything. I've not touted anything. Get a grip.

I think you're suffering commissar syndrome in imagining you can presuppose the complexities of human interactions.

More commissar syndrome.

To whom must these solid set of reasons be produced? If I'm an employer then I will make my own choices, thank you.

I've done no such thing. I do no such thing. If you mean russ then where has he indicated any misrepresenting of his credentials?

I'm sure that Oregonian officials are not the usual lying politicians and programmed functionaries.

 

There are no excuses, Comrade.

I wonder if Socrates, Da Vinci, Newton and Einstein would agree? How about Thomas Jefferson or Samuel Clemens? Think they would agree with your One-True-Way?

 

I (and Rich before me) said that Russ' proposed alternative to accreditation (his "private agencies") is really just the current accreditation system described in different words. He replies:

We are in some undefined "mess" because your idea isn't significantly different than the existing accreditation system? That doesn't make sense.

How does the accreditation system throw "perfectly good" non-accredited schools to wolves?

The fact that non-accredited universities are allowed to operate in the United States at all, unlike a country like Australia where all universities must have the government equivalent of accreditation as a condition of their very existence, suggests that our system actually bends over backwards to accomodate them.

And once again, for the n'th time, how do you recommend that people determine which are the "perfectly good" non-accredited schools and which aren't?

It's "conviction" to say that there's no reason to consider a particular school legitimate when there's no reason to consider it legitimate?

What are people supposed to say? That every purported degree is academically legitimate, no matter where it comes from?

Look, a university can either submit to accreditation, or else its defenders can try to present some kind of credible alternative evidence in the school's behalf. If neither happens, then what justifies anyone calling the school or its degrees "legitimate"?

I'm not sure where your numbers are coming from.

I do think that the more prominent universities, whether state or not, probably could remain credible without accreditation. That's because they produce a great deal of additional evidence of their academic credibility.

So... what have your "legitimate" non-accredited programs been doing recently?

That's not an inappropriate question to ask. And it's not the fault of accreditation if your non-accredited schools have no answer.

 

Actually, there is something more to say. This is for newbies, visitors, and lurkers who read this thread (regulars pretty much know this).

The offensive political language in this thread--"heel-clicking" and "commissar" this and that--designed to slander other posters by associating them with brutal totalitarian ideologies, not to mention questioning the American-ness of posters, not to mention the endless attack on educational standards which is the icing on this political cake, is NOT typical of this board and has nothing to do with the purposes of this board. Do not be misled or disappointed by it. Whatever you do, do not be guided in your educational decisions by it.

There is a political discussion forum, for better or worse, in which intellligent political discussion, not to mention plain old ranting, are there to see or join in if this is to your taste (as it is to mine on occasion).

But do not let abusive political language dissuade you from seeking and getting the information you need. We are here not only to talk to (or at) each other but also in order to help you and help each other make responsible and productive--and legal--educational choices.

Best wishes to you,
Janko Preotul

 

We obviously do have non-accredited schools. Whether or not any particular one of them is legitimate can't just be assumed.

My position is that there's no reason to assume that a school is legitimate unless there's reason to assume that it's legitimate. (That's logically undeniable, I think.)

Accreditation is the most widely recognized and probably the most reliable way of determining legitimacy.

Other alternatives to accreditation do exist, but they presuppose familiarity with the school in question and with its activities. That suggests that these alternatives to accreditation are most appropriate in specialized 'niche' communities where particular non-accredited schools are well known. An example might be a small religious denomination that knows and trusts the non-accredited seminary that the denomination itself runs.

 

The associations you make are an indication of nothing but your state of mind.

I have a posting history here that is my record. My choice of terms in this thread is nothing more than countering with like.

 

Hi Russ, having a federal standard for what a standard bachelor degree must minimally contain is different from regulating how the accreditation organizations must do their job.



So please explain the source for your hatred of the ODA. The obvious explanation is that you hold a degree mill degree that the ODA says is illegal for use in Oregon. Instead of focusing your frustration on the proper target, the con-man that ripped you off, you instead try to demonize the messenger. If my obvious conclusion is incorrect then please feel free to correct.

 

To all shills, trolls, and pursuers of substandard or utterly phony degrees:

This argument is going nowhere, largely because those who invest in bogus institutions cannot AFFORD to admit the obvious fact: Accreditation is the ONLY convenient device we have to assure quality and measure uniformity of accomplishment in the academic world. Once this rather obvious fact is admitted, there remains little else to say.

However, I admit that I forgot myself; I personally owe a bit to the sellers and buyers of bogus credentials. They've been my clients from time to time!

 

Or the argument is going nowhere because you've missed the argument. The argument is not over accreditation but government enforcement of accreditation. I stick with my contention that government should stick to prosecuting fraud.

 

Hey, Uncle,

Don't worry too much about the invective flung my way. I am well aware that shills and trolls resort to personal abuse when the argument is essentially unanswerable.

As to the rest, folks, if you want a Ph.D. (or whatever) to mean ANYTHING, you must accept some sort of standard. Trolls and shills harp on their inalienable rights to represent themselves as something they are not. Fine.

It's just job security for me.

 

Who in this thread are shills and trolls?

Who in this thread is representing themself as something they are not?

 

Thanks, decimon. Not one of my posts have argued for diploma mills but it is the same straw man that is brought up in response over and over again.

 

I have no "hatred" for the ODA or anyone on this board. To me, that is not a healthy state of mind.

No, I do not hold a degree mill degree but nice try...

Any yes, I am feeling free to correct you so please assume the position of being corrected.

As I have mentioned quite a few times, ODA is not the answer and is therefore a waste of money. In fact, my understanding is that the reason they are charging fees is to try to fund themselves since there is very little support in the Oregon legislature for funding this activity. Please feel free to put your money where your mouth is if you support ODA. I have heard they take credit cards just like the diploma mills. We have a host of other pressing issues that are more important than providing an enforcement department for the accredited colleges around the country who wish to get rid of any unaccredited competitors.

 

Gee, I guess that clears up everything in your mind. See you later!

 

I would think you guys would read the information under "accreditation" on degree.net before coming here. That is where those numbers came from and the fact that major accredited universities seriously considered dropping accreditation all together which I still believe is a wonderful idea. It is one more 'cost center' which, for many universities, is just not necessary.

Who really cares if Harvard, Yale, Princeton or even University of Oregon and Oregon State University says they are accredited? It really does not mean anything if the school is considered legitimate.

 

Okay, you have a degree from what unaccredited school?