The ODA

[plcscott]

I just read the thread here about the ODA, and I think Bill Dayson makes some very good points. The ODA is required to warn and eventually fine if neccessary a person using an unaccredited degree in Oregon. Even though we have only heard one side of the story, it really seems irrelevent since BJU is now approved in Oregon. If other unaccredited schools would apply and go through the approval process then their student's/alumni would not have to worry about such.

If Mr. Contreras does not apply objective standards to evaluating schools then I would say that he was definitely incompetent to serve in his position. However, the ones that attack him do so because evidently he is doing his job. Rather than being angry at the ODA because such and such school is listed on the ODA site, where is the anger at the school's administrations that will not pay the small fee to go through the process?

The onus was on BJU to be approved by the ODA because they choose not to be accredited. BTW, BJU is a fine institution, I have worked with and know of several BJU alumni.

[J]

I take the view that the principal value of the ODA list is as a consumer protection tool.

I think the Oregon statute has been improperly framed. There are unaccredited schools on the list that are not degree mills. It should not be the case that they are placed on the list after less than thorough investigation and then have to pay to get off it. Nor should ODA be doing the job of an accrediting agency by determining school standards, unless it has that level of resources to do a credible job.

I would be in favour of a different sort of list - a list of schools that are proven to be diploma mills by definition of their selling degrees with no reasonable academic process. That is the category of credential that does most damage in the workplace and that has the strongest consumer protection argument behind it. To some extent that means that I would give stronger emphasis to the material by George Gollin on the site and spend less time than ODA has on schools that can claim to have some reasonable academic process, even when that constitutes something that is "alternative" to the mainstream.

I also think the ODA list should be devoting more time to "diploma replacement services" which are as big a problem as degree-sellers.

[dr. latin juris]

I start to think that the State of Oregon, do not like religion, ODA have a couple of no native and native-religious institutions in the list.

Academy of Religious & Spiritual Studies
Beloved Community Seminary
Christian Leadership University
Communion of Saints Seminary
Crown Church College & University
Hamilton University ( :o :o :o )
Success Seminary

[Bill Dayson]

I think the Oregon statute has been improperly framed.
I agree that a very good argument can be made that the law was badly written. But in my opinion, the potentially fatal flaw has nothing to do with the list. Rather, it's the vagueness surrounding the idea of "using" a degree. I mean, what if I tell somebody at a party that I have a degree? What if they are impressed? What if a babe thinks I have big... brains, and I get laid? What if a guy with a company is impressed and offers me a job? In other words, talking about a degree and using it kind of blur together seamlessly. So there are inevitably going to be free-speech issues.

Of course, I suppose that a similar problem exists with laws against practicing medicine without a license. And these laws do pass court tests. We all have opinions about other people's health problems, after all. But at some point our rights to speak freely about other people's conditions crosses the line into being a felony.

Perhaps the crux of the issue is the claim of expertise and authority. We can all exercise free speech to offer up our folk remedies, but we can't offer our remedies while claiming to be M.D.s unless we are properly licensed.

So similarly, perhaps one might argue that Oregonians are free to say that they have all kinds of educations whether they do or not, but we can't tout their educations while claiming to possess a conventional university degree unless that degree is accredited.

But I'm still not entirely comfortable with that, though.

Anyway, that's where I perceive the real legal weakness in the Oregon law to be.

[plcscott]

J,

The question would then be what is a reasonable academic process. If school A will give a degree for 5 years of experience, school B will give a degree for a few courses and a paper, and school C has similar standards as accredited schools then which ones would be reasonable academic processes? How much academic work would be considered reasonable?

IMO for a degree to really mean something then it should have roughly the same standards regardless of the institution.

I see no problem with the ODA listing all the accredited schools that it knows of as illegal to use in Oregon, however, I do see a problem with the ODA calling some diploma mills, and not others. I think they should all just be listed as illegal, and leave the onus on the institutions to pay the $250 fee to be evaluated. If the ODA does not use objective standards to evaluate schools then I would certainly be against it, but I have not seen any evidence of that.

As far as the ODA not doing thorough research, this may be true, but the best way to get a thorough look from the ODA would be to apply for approval. With all the money the schools are saving on accreditation, $250 should be nothing to them. I think most of the schools do not apply because they know they would not meet the standards (just my opinion).

[Dave Hayden]

J,

...

I see no problem with the ODA listing all the accredited schools that it knows of as illegal to use in Oregon, however, I do see a problem with the ODA calling some diploma mills, and not others. I think they should all just be listed as illegal, and leave the onus on the institutions to pay the $250 fee to be evaluated. If the ODA does not use objective standards to evaluate schools then I would certainly be against it, but I have not seen any evidence of that.
...


Hi Plc

I am presuming you mean unaccredited. :) I believe the ODA formerly did exactly what you describe, not list degree mills as such, and people attacked them for not being more specific. I really don't believe many of the critics of the ODA could EVER be satisfied. Many of them believe unaccredited (and even substandard or degree mill) degrees are just as valuable as accredited degrees.

P.S. I ALWAYS enjoy your well thought out and reasoned posts. Even when I disagree, I am impressed by your approach!

Dave

[Neil Hayes]

I take the view that the principal value of the ODA list is as a consumer protection tool.
I think the Oregon statute has been improperly framed. There are unaccredited schools on the list that are not degree mills. It should not be the case that they are placed on the list after less than thorough investigation and then have to pay to get off it. Nor should ODA be doing the job of an accrediting agency by determining school standards, unless it has that level of resources to do a credible job.
I would be in favour of a different sort of list - a list of schools that are proven to be diploma mills by definition of their selling degrees with no reasonable academic process. That is the category of credential that does most damage in the workplace and that has the strongest consumer protection argument behind it. To some extent that means that I would give stronger emphasis to the material by George Gollin on the site and spend less time than ODA has on schools that can claim to have some reasonable academic process, even when that constitutes something that is "alternative" to the mainstream.
I also think the ODA list should be devoting more time to "diploma replacement services" which are as big a problem as degree-sellers.

What you suggest is very reminiscent of the Australian approach - a list of unaccredited schools, which may have some value, and a list of diploma-mills, which are know to be exactly that and have no value. A very simple and inexpensive approach and one that is a satisfactory guide - without the million dollar bureaucratic empire.

[Dave Hayden]

Of course, the Oregon Legislature has already decided what the best course of action is and made it law. The ODA is following that law. What we think is the best approach or our opinion on their actions has NO bearing on the matter what so ever. Other than an academic exercise, our opinion has no value.

[J]

Of course, the Oregon Legislature has already decided what the best course of action is and made it law. The ODA is following that law. What we think is the best approach or our opinion on their actions has NO bearing on the matter what so ever. Other than an academic exercise, our opinion has no value.

That is a weak argument. Laws are made by the will of the people in a democracy. If enough people lobby Oregon's legislators, the law will be changed. I would be very surprised to learn that people who post at DL forums were in no way influential in bringing forward the Oregon law in the first place.

I don't wish in any way to imply that you were referring to it in this way, but it does occur to me that if we had taken that view in the past, for example, the civil rights movement would never have happened - nor indeed the War of Independence. People would have simply said - that's the law, our opinion has no value. I disagree.

[J]

I mean, what if I tell somebody at a party that I have a degree? What if they are impressed? What if a babe thinks I have big... brains, and I get laid? What if a guy with a company is impressed and offers me a job? In other words, talking about a degree and using it kind of blur together seamlessly. So there are inevitably going to be free-speech issues.

I agree strongly with that point.

The thought that degrees might impress girls has me thinking about going back to school again... :D

[plcscott]

I agree strongly with that point.

The thought that degrees might impress girls has me thinking about going back to school again... :D

Ah come on, Bill couldn't get laid if he did have a big degree. :D JK.

Dave, you are right I did mean unaccredited. You would think I would take the time to go back and read a post before I submit it.

I just do not see the ODA as some kind of evil. It obviously is not perfect, but at least it is an attempt to protect Oregon from diploma mills. It puts the responsibility on schools that choose to not be accredited to become approved, so that their degrees can be used in Oregon. If a school decides it does not want the oversight of an accreditor then it has live with these consequences. If a school decides to only be state approved in one state then it has to realize that another state may not accept it which is the downside of being unaccredited.

[Dave Hayden]

...

I just do not see the ODA as some kind of evil. It obviously is not perfect, but at least it is an attempt to protect Oregon from diploma mills. It puts the responsibility on schools that choose to not be accredited to become approved, so that their degrees can be used in Oregon. If a school decides it does not want the oversight of an accreditor then it has live with these consequences. If a school decides to only be state approved in one state then it has to realize that another state may not accept it which is the downside of being unaccredited.

I couldn't agree more.
:)

[Bill Dayson]

The thought that degrees might impress girls has me thinking about going back to school again... :D

What other reason is there to sign up for DL?

Ah come on, Bill couldn't get laid if he did have a big degree. :D JK.

I'd hoped that my masters degree would have them all saying "Yes, Master", but it hasn't exactly worked out that way.

I guess that I need a really huge Ph.D.