Nice job ODA.

[plcscott]

Since the ODA and Alan C. catch a lot of flak, I think it is a good time to say, good job. CCU just announced their accreditation by DETC, and the ODA removed them from it's list the same day.

Good job!

[Neil Hayes]

Since the ODA and Alan C. catch a lot of flak, I think it is a good time to say, good job. CCU just announced their accreditation by DETC, and the ODA removed them from it's list the same day.
Good job!

I assume this post is a very tongue in cheek post George, as CCU was a degree mill on the ODA list only a few months ago. Then it became "Not a degree mill", but still NBG, and within a day or so of accreditation CCU is instantly removed from the unaccredited list.
As I've mentioned elsewhere, if you seriously analyse the ODA unaccredited list, as well as significant parts of the ODA website, you will quickly determine that both are full of very serious blunders - and you realise that the list and website are seriously flawed.
Of course, Kennedy-Western proved this very successfully. Others will follow!

[plcscott]

Nothing tongue and cheek, just acknowledgment.

The only problem I have with the ODA is the labeling of schools. I think the ODA would be better off just listing schools that are unaccredited and unapproved without attaching labels. I do think the ODA went beyond it's scope by doing that; however, I do not despise the ODA as some do, and do not fault Alan C. for doing his job.

CCU is no longer listed on the ODA site, and their alumni are completely free to use their degrees without hindrance, and I applaud them for it just as I applaud the ODA for being quick to remove them.

[RA_Ph.D.]

Nothing tongue and cheek, just acknowledgment.

The only problem I have with the ODA is the labeling of schools. I think the ODA would be better off just listing schools that are unaccredited and unapproved without attaching labels. I do think the ODA went beyond it's scope by doing that; however, I do not despise the ODA as some do, and do not fault Alan C. for doing his job.

CCU is no longer listed on the ODA site, and their alumni are completely free to use their degrees without hindrance, and I applaud them for it just as I applaud the ODA for being quick to remove them.


While I would not support faud in educational pratices, I have real doubts about Government banning of degrees in a blanket way, whether degrees from legimate or substandard or non-school schools. Of course, Government regulation of certain professions (medical, etc.) may require some intervention about degree quality for licensure, but Government control overall is a bad thing as it reduces the possibility of free-thinking and herersy in academics. Academe needs a good shaking up now and again and lots of heresy to counterbalance its typical overbureaucratism that stifles creative and marginal ideas. ODA simply contributes to protecting RA ideology and more bureaucratism, not necessarily to promoting high quality educational standards.

There are around 4000 accredited institutions of higher education in the U.S.; many are rife with cheating, low standards, inordinate, dominating atheleticism, etc.: there is plenty to "clean up" in our own "legitimate" back yard before spending Government money on policing non-schools that sell fake degrees. A few well-directed, educated, probing questions to "graduates" of such scam outfits can quickly undercover their nonsense.

[plcscott]

ODA simply contributes to protecting RA ideology and more bureaucratism, not necessarily to promoting high quality educational standards.

The ODA recognizes all the legitimate accreditors that the USDOE and CHEA recognize, so how is that RA ideology?

I certainly think there is a lot of cleaning up to do in education, but at least the ODA and Oregon are trying to something. For a degree to mean something it should not be given for a resume with little to no work at one school, a few exams and a paper at another school, and then 40+ courses and 4 years at another. Something should be done, shouldn't it?

Most everyone on these forums seems to think that SRU is a diploma mill, and should be illegal. However, no one seems to want to draw the line of what should be a legal school, and what shouldn't. The ODA and Oregon has right or wrong drawn that line, and decided that schools must either be accredited or meet their standards for approval. I do not see a problem with that because like the spokesperson said from the WY DOE, "a legitimate school is expected to become accredited".

[Jay2]

Yeah right, that's why Contreras and his secretary are getting re-educated by the Attorney General's office. When you substitute opinions for facts you get, "re-educated." He was never more than another person offering opinions, nothing more. That these opinions supported RA or No Way was his only claim to Sainthood and worship. Now that his feet have been shown to be of clay, a new champion will be dug up.

[plcscott]

Yeah right, that's why Contreras and his secretary are getting re-educated by the Attorney General's office. When you substitute opinions for facts you get, "re-educated." He was never more than another person offering opinions, nothing more. That these opinions supported RA or No Way was his only claim to Sainthood and worship. Now that his feet have been shown to be of clay, a new champion will be dug up.

The ODA should just list schools as unaccredited and not approved for use in Oregon, but if they accept all accreditors recognized by CHEA then how can that be RA or No Way?

The ODA got in trouble for labeling and describing schools as they should have, but before we string Alan C. up I would want to see evidence that he does not evaluate schools using objective standards. If so, then I certainly would say that he should be fired, but if not, then those that loath him should find a new devil. ;)

[Neil Hayes]

While I would not support faud in educational pratices, I have real doubts about Government banning of degrees in a blanket way, whether degrees from legimate or substandard or non-school schools. Of course, Government regulation of certain professions (medical, etc.) may require some intervention about degree quality for licensure, but Government control overall is a bad thing as it reduces the possibility of free-thinking and herersy in academics. Academe needs a good shaking up now and again and lots of heresy to counterbalance its typical overbureaucratism that stifles creative and marginal ideas. ODA simply contributes to protecting RA ideology and more bureaucratism, not necessarily to promoting high quality educational standards.
There are around 4000 accredited institutions of higher education in the U.S.; many are rife with cheating, low standards, inordinate, dominating atheleticism, etc.: there is plenty to "clean up" in our own "legitimate" back yard before spending Government money on policing non-schools that sell fake degrees. A few well-directed, educated, probing questions to "graduates" of such scam outfits can quickly undercover their nonsense.

An excellent contribution RA_Ph.D. I'm just drafting a piece about bureaucracy for insertion in a number of NZ journals, part of it says "What is also disturbing is the creeping paralysis of bureaucracy that is evident in all areas of New Zealand life - from District Councils, City Councils, Regional Councils, Environmental Risk Management Authority, Dept of Occupational Safety & Health, Dept of Foreign Affairs, Department of Conservation, Inland Revenue, Secret Service, Quango's of all sorts, plus a whole host of Government Departments, that have nothing better to do than infiltrate and modify our life-style. Individually and collectively these organisations have a decidedly negative impact on our quality of life and actually make no contribution whatsoever to NZ's wealth or welfare."
Looking at the ODA scenario it is apparent that this creeping paralysis of bureaucracy is not confined to New Zealand!

[Robert J.]

I think the ODA's mission is overall good. I think some of their information is not accurate. I also do not agree with them "judging" and using labels. One man's mill is another man's fantastic learning opportunity not found by traditional means.

Either the school is approved or not and that's all that is needed. As a law student, I don't like the fact that there isn't due process in the typical American way, you are guilty until you pay the fees, however, that is a legislative issue not an ODA issue.

Whether or not they have had outside influence isn't too clear to me either considering VIU went on the list when someone tipped them off. I began doubting the ODA when I read the expert UCLA Professor's testimony about the BJU case and it made me angry even though I am not even an Oregon citizen.

As far as them doing a "Good Job" for removing CCU from the list, I don't know about that, I would expect nothing less but that.

[plcscott]

As a law student, I don't like the fact that there isn't due process in the typical American way, you are guilty until you pay the fees, however, that is a legislative issue not an ODA issue.

I agree with most everything you wrote Robert, but without much knowledge of the the law it just seems like common sense to me. If I want to do business in another state in which I do not have a contractors license in, I must obtain one. If I don't then I am guilty of contracting without a license. Even though I was licensed to do so in other states, I can't in the states that I am not currently licensed without applying to them and meeting their criteria. Some states have reciprocity and some don't, so in some I may have to take exams or have current CPA audits. So, I understand the ODA law, even though I think it may have needed to be calibrated or fine tuned which I suspect is happening now. I have no problem with the ODA listing any or all illegal schools, but they should not be labeling schools even if they are correct with some of the labels.


As far as them as doing a "Good Job" for removing CCU from the list, I don't know about that, I would expect nothing less but that.

Yes, but if Alan really had such an agenda, and is so biased against CCU, then I am sure he could have taken his time to do so like most every other gov't entity does.

[J]

I also do not agree with them "judging" and using labels. One man's mill is another man's fantastic learning opportunity not found by traditional means.

Either the school is approved or not and that's all that is needed. As a law student, I don't like the fact that there isn't due process in the typical American way, you are guilty until you pay the fees, however, that is a legislative issue not an ODA issue.

I agree entirely with this, especially the first paragraph. Educational opportunity exists beyond considerations of external approval.

Whether or not they have had outside influence isn't too clear to me either considering VIU went on the list when someone tipped them off.

As did Knightsbridge, according to a post at DI. Both ways round, this is not an appropriate or reliable method of evaluating and making decisions about schools.

I also see no way in which ODA can make any kind of reliable judgement about non-US schools. It isn't an international accrediting agency. In some parts of the world, educational standards are extremely low and even corrupt, but I don't see schools from those places on the ODA list. Liberia only makes it because it gets attention on the DL sites that Contreras reads.

[J]

Yes, but if Alan really had such an agenda, and is so biased against CCU, then I am sure he could have taken his time to do so like most every other gov't entity does.

If ODA hadn't taken CCU off immediately, they would have faced another lawsuit, this time without a leg to stand on.

I have a significant problem with the fact that ODA is used by some as a kind of universal reference point for information about schools when in reality it has neither the resources nor the objectivity to be any such thing. By overreaching its target and failing to successfully deploy its resources, ODA fails the people of Oregon as well as the wider community.

[A-N]

If ODA hadn't taken CCU off immediately, they would have faced another lawsuit, this time without a leg to stand on.

I have a significant problem with the fact that ODA is used by some as a kind of universal reference point for information about schools when in reality it has neither the resources nor the objectivity to be any such thing. By overreaching its target and failing to successfully deploy its resources, ODA fails the people of Oregon as well as the wider community.

Excellent points J, I totally agree.

[Robert J.]

If I want to do business in another state in which I do not have a contractors license in, I must obtain one.

Of course, but you wouldn't face jail time for putting "Contractor's license, NC" on your resume if you were applying for a burger position in Georgia. To me that's a better analogy. When a degree was illegal,it was illegal, period, fine and jail time for you.

[BDev]

That whole ODA issue seems too much like extortion to me.

[plcscott]

No doubt that the ODA would have had to remove CCU, but it was removed quickly which was my point.

What would be a good alternative to the ODA, or should all these schools with no oversight be given the freedom to do what ever they want?

BTW, it is also illegal to claim or advertise to be a contractor in the states that I know of without being licensed, and there is stiff punishment for doing so with no warnings. The ODA does give warnings, right? Has anyone ever gone to jail?

Also, I agree that the Oregon list is often used as a reference, but many schools use fake accreditors, associations, state license's, and even foreign accreditation (Liberia) as a form endorsement to fool people too. Which is worse?

[RA_Ph.D.]

No doubt that the ODA would have had to remove CCU, but it was removed quickly which was my point.

What would be a good alternative to the ODA, or should all these schools with no oversight be given the freedom to do what ever they want?

BTW, it is also illegal to claim or advertise to be a contractor in the states that I know of without being licensed, and there is stiff punishment for doing so with no warnings. The ODA does give warnings, right? Has anyone ever gone to jail?

Also, I agree that the Oregon list is often used as a reference, but many schools use fake accreditors, associations, state license's, and even foreign accreditation (Liberia) as a form endorsement to fool people too. Which is worse?


Would not a more cautious approach be in order ? ODA could simply say that the following schools are not accredited by tradtional agencies and thus, their degrees are viewed in some circles as problematic. Why ban under penalty of jail? Inform the consumer and allow freedom of choice. The ODA list has come to be the golden standard of what's real, legimate and worthwhile. Not every non-traditional school is an academic mill, but to punish someone for sporting a non-traditional degree on his buisness card--way too much.

I really don't understand how too many students can be "fooled" by a no-work degree. Either your work had academic supervision or it didn't. Since around 70% of the college age group in the U.S. is enrolled in tertiary education, it shouldn't be too hard to find out what college is all about here in the U.S. Are non-Americans fooled by mills ? Perhaps more so than their counterparts.

Ban degrees ? I think that freedom of choice in education outweighs governmental intervention in the balance of evils. Let the labor market and professional organizations police degree quality. In other words, who is Mr.Contreas ( or anyone else) to be a one-man, world-wide accreditation and degree verification bureau ? Gosh, debates rage for weeks (years ?) on various DL fora about the relative merits of given schools, accredited and unaccredited; the area is definitely gray. Just check out the Knightsbridge debate--how long has it been going on ?

[RodKirkland]

I suppose Alan was responding to a number of requests. I was probably one of many who contacted his office directly on Jan 9 informing him of the fact that CCU would be accredited as of Jan 10 and requested him to remove CCU from the list on that date.

[Robert J.]

BTW, it is also illegal to claim or advertise to be a contractor in the states that I know of without being licensed, and there is stiff punishment for doing so with no warnings. The ODA does give warnings, right? Has anyone ever gone to jail?


Again, it's not the same thing, Saying you are a licensed Contractor in North Carolina while applying for a Burger place in Georgia is merely stating a fact. Why is stating a fact illegal? Someone who states the fact they have a SCUPS degree on a resume is illegal in Oregon. This is where Kennedy Western's free speech argument came into play.

Why is stating facts illegal? Well turns out the Attorney general had to agree somewhat with that argument to prevent getting creamed in constitutional law in a court case.


"BS Degree 1998 Kennedy Western" <--- is/was illegal in Oregon until a few weeks ago, quite possibly as worded still might be.

Whether or not anyone has gone to jail doesn't matter, the fact is you can go to Jail, it is also counter-arguative to state "I'm just doing my job" in one area of the ODA such as putting schools on a list yet not implement the whole thing e.g. putting someone in Jail and fining them. Either he does his job or he doesn't.

[plcscott]

Again, it's not the same thing, Saying you are a licensed Contractor in North Carolina while applying for a Burger place in Georgia is merely stating a fact. Why is stating a fact illegal? Someone who states the fact they have a SCUPS degree on a resume is illegal in Oregon. This is where Kennedy Western's free speech argument came into play.

Why is stating facts illegal? Well turns out the Attorney general had to agree somewhat with that argument to prevent getting creamed in constitutional law in a court case.


"BS Degree 1998 Kennedy Western" <--- is/was illegal in Oregon until a few weeks ago, quite possibly as worded still might be.

Whether or not anyone has gone to jail doesn't matter, the fact is you can go to Jail, it is also counter-arguative to state "I'm just doing my job" in one area of the ODA such as putting schools on a list yet not implement the whole thing e.g. putting someone in Jail and fining them. Either he does his job or he doesn't.

I agree with you, however, this causes me to see the settlement different now. Now, I realize that the AG may have done the right thing by requiring:

BS Degree 1998 Kennedy Western - Unaccredited; lacks approval of the ODA.

This makes more sense since the statement is factual, yet carries a disclaimer.

[plcscott]

Would not a more cautious approach be in order ? ODA could simply say that the following schools are not accredited by tradtional agencies and thus, their degrees are viewed in some circles as problematic. Why ban under penalty of jail? Inform the consumer and allow freedom of choice.

But, what good is a list of schools that may be problematic? If you have rules or laws their has to be the potential for punishment else what good is the law. If people would not have to go to jail for stealing then I suspect Walmart would be empty. Robert makes a good point, what good is the law if you do not enforce it?

The ODA list has come to be the golden standard of what's real, legimate and worthwhile. Not every non-traditional school is an academic mill, but to punish someone for sporting a non-traditional degree on his buisness card--way too much.

True, and the ODA has a process for the ones that are not to pay a small fee to be approved. Schools that do as much as $25 million a year could certainly afford $250 right?

I really don't understand how too many students can be "fooled" by a no-work degree. Either your work had academic supervision or it didn't. Since around 70% of the college age group in the U.S. is enrolled in tertiary education, it shouldn't be too hard to find out what college is all about here in the U.S. Are non-Americans fooled by mills ? Perhaps more so than their counterparts.

But, what about employers and others that can easily be fooled by such. Also, what about the schools that require some work, but not near the level of accredited schools? How many are fooled on both sides (employers and students) with these schools?

Ban degrees ? I think that freedom of choice in education outweighs governmental intervention in the balance of evils. Let the labor market and professional organizations police degree quality. In other words, who is Mr.Contreas ( or anyone else) to be a one-man, world-wide accreditation and degree verification bureau ?

The thing is Alan C. is not a one man accrediting bureau. All of the CHEA accreditors do the accrediting; the ODA only has an approval process. I think it all boils down to if a school is legitimate they should seek accreditation, but if they choose not to then in Oregon they will have to apply to be approved or else be illegal. If it is discovered that the ODA does not evaluate schools that apply fairly then I will be the ODA's biggest critic.

[dr. latin juris]

George, what are the requirements that CCU do not meet in Oregon, the same day that was accredited?

Look, the same day of the accreditation, Alan articulates that CCU is not a mill, BUT he continued to put CCU in the list in a malevolent form, and also says that CCU does not meet up the requirements of Oregon. However DETC, that same day, declares that CCU meets the requirements in all US.

Its no that hard to believe.

For that kind of ridiculous evaluation with no Due Process and the MAGNA NEGLIGENTIA, is that the Justice Department, order to ODA to go back to kindergarten.

DETC tear down your :twisted: clandestine plan!

[plcscott]

George, what are the requirements that CCU do not meet in Oregon, the same day that was accredited?


I don't know, did they apply to the ODA last week before they applied to DETC?

I would think that if CCU wanted to be approved they would have applied for the approval. CCU did the right thing by becoming accredited which made the ODA approval a non issue.

[RA_Ph.D.]

The thing is Alan C. is not a one man accrediting bureau. All of the CHEA accreditors do the accrediting; the ODA only has an approval process. I think it all boils down to if a school is legitimate they should seek accreditation, but if they choose not to then in Oregon they will have to apply to be approved or else be illegal. If it is discovered that the ODA does not evaluate schools that apply fairly then I will be the ODA's biggest critic.


Is there no place for no place for unconventional, unaccredited academic institutions ?

What about Knightsbridge, for example? Some say its just another mill; others, including its owner Fyrst, claim that it has academic processes and fits the needs of established figures who need a way to validate their accomplishments with an academic certification. The debate goes on. Is there no place for institutions such as Knightsbridge which operate outside conventional accreditation stuctures ? Should this sort of operation be declared illegal rather than just held to be unconventional or non-traditional ? Why should governments decide what a legitimate degree is in all cirumstances ? Are governmental entities or even accreditation bodies all wise and ideologically pure--I don't think so. Personally, I don't want Big Brother determining the status of my degrees--I'd perfer professional bodies or scholarly associations to Big Brother for that job. Dissent is hard enough to maintain within academe; governmental control just adds another layer of difficulty for the ideologically impure of any era. Government intrusion = limited freedom; personal choice= more freedom.

[Jay2]

I don't know, did they apply to the ODA last week before they applied to DETC?

I would think that if CCU wanted to be approved they would have applied for the approval. CCU did the right thing by becoming accredited which made the ODA approval a non issue.

Yeah, that's a heck of a way to run state approval. Guilty till proven innocent. In other words it would be fair to call your business fradulent up front and then let you pay a fee and then try to prove you were honest and competent. Contreras used opinion to form his list and then demanded money and paperwork to remove schools from the list. A state agency must assemble the facts "first" not last.

I sure would like to be charged with a crime and have the judge say first thing,"James you are guilty, can you prove me wrong?" :o

[Neil Hayes]

But, what good is a list of schools that may be problematic? If you have rules or laws their has to be the potential for punishment else what good is the law. If people would not have to go to jail for stealing then I suspect Walmart would be empty. Robert makes a good point, what good is the law if you do not enforce it?


To their credit the Australian's, no doubt ably assisted by George Brown, have produced a pretty comprehensive list of degree-mills and a separate list for unaccredited schools that have academic value and award degrees that offer utility in a wide variety of applications. This list is way ahead of the Contreras list because it was produced by serious research and not by the subjective thought processes of one man, who was often incorrectly advised by those self-styled 'experts'. The Ausie list is supposed to have a Link on the ODA website, but the Link doesn't seem to work any more.

[J]

The answer to all of this is a straightforward one.

1 - Accept that in fact universities - everywhere - are independent entities that have a right to determine the content of their own programs in a free market.
2 - Accept that some institutions - principally those with non-resident doctoral programs - will choose to be unaccredited and offer a non-traditional alternative to traditional programs.
3 - Rely on professional accreditation in those areas meriting it as the passport to a profession rather than solely the degree itself.
4 - Pass Federal legislation making the bottom-line outright selling of academic degrees without any actual process of academic work or evaluation of experiential learning punishable by jail. Almeda and St Regis, to name but two, would have been the subject of FBI investigations and closed overnight.
5 - Do what you can and be realistic. Don't try to operate an international accrediting agency or even a national accrediting agency on a staff of two and a half people unqualified for the job, at least one of whom has allowed his actions to be seriously open to charges of improper influence.

[J]

But, what good is a list of schools that may be problematic? If you have rules or laws their has to be the potential for punishment else what good is the law. If people would not have to go to jail for stealing then I suspect Walmart would be empty. Robert makes a good point, what good is the law if you do not enforce it?

The emphasis should be on objective information rather than on punishment. It is not a crime to choose differently and like something someone else doesn't. Nor is it a crime to set up or participate in an innovative education program. To suggest otherwise is to support a situation where universities have little or no autonomy and everything is decided by big brother. Even the Soviet Union didn't go quite that far.

True, and the ODA has a process for the ones that are not to pay a small fee to be approved. Schools that do as much as $25 million a year could certainly afford $250 right?

That is not the issue. The process cannot be trusted because those leading it are not objective, in some cases (on experience credit) apply harsher rules that some of the regional accreditors do, as a result apply different standards to unaccredited and accredited schools and have no proper resources to do the job. And they say guilty until proven innocent, which is a curiously un-American form of "justice".

But, what about employers and others that can easily be fooled by such. Also, what about the schools that require some work, but not near the level of accredited schools? How many are fooled on both sides (employers and students) with these schools?

Schools need autonomy to determine their own programs and standards within a basic bottom-line law that prevents degree-selling. CCU was a good unaccredited school for 20 years and now is a good accredited school - the accreditation has not changed its nature, merely made its degrees more useable. If someone chooses a non-traditional program they are within their rights to do so, just as an employer will decide whether that degree meets their needs or not. Supporters of the argument you advance above are ultimately anti-freedom, and in many cases their motivation is one of envy - "your degree was easier than mine!" - and snobbery, with each drawing the line immediately under his own feet.

The thing is Alan C. is not a one man accrediting bureau.?

Are you serious? Not only does he act as such, he makes a poor job of it.

If it is discovered that the ODA does not evaluate schools that apply fairly then I will be the ODA's biggest critic.

Schools that apply stand no chance of a fair evaluation. When they have been put on the list as a result of telephone tip-offs and have to pay to be removed, that is no justice. Contreras is in the pocket of degreeinfo; he posts there and listens to a group of the regulars. He allows himself to be linked in the press with the so-called "carpmasters"; Ezell, Bear, Gollin. He poses for photos holding Levicoff's long-dead book. Any idea that he is objective in his work is a joke. Kennedy-Western has shown up ODA for what it is - a busted flush.

[plcscott]

To their credit the Australian's, no doubt ably assisted by George Brown, have produced a pretty comprehensive list of degree-mills and a separate list for unaccredited schools that have academic value and award degrees that offer utility in a wide variety of applications. This list is way ahead of the Contreras list because it was produced by serious research and not by the subjective thought processes of one man, who was often incorrectly advised by those self-styled 'experts'. The Ausie list is supposed to have a Link on the ODA website, but the Link doesn't seem to work any more.

So the AU list is not based upon opinion, but the ODA is?

[plcscott]

The emphasis should be on objective information rather than on punishment. It is not a crime to choose differently and like something someone else doesn't. Nor is it a crime to set up or participate in an innovative education program. To suggest otherwise is to support a situation where universities have little or no autonomy and everything is decided by big brother. Even the Soviet Union didn't go quite that far.

The list is schools that are unaccredited and lack the ODA's approval, therefore they are illegal. There are two ways to become completely legal there: accreditation, and apply for approval and meet their standards.

That is not the issue. The process cannot be trusted because those leading it are not objective, in some cases (on experience credit) apply harsher rules that some of the regional accreditors do, as a result apply different standards to unaccredited and accredited schools and have no proper resources to do the job. And they say guilty until proven innocent, which is a curiously un-American form of "justice".

It is the issue. If you can show me that the ODA does NOT use objective standards then I am with you, but if they have a clear objective standards that they require then what is to argue. If the ODA's standards are higher than accreditors then that is Oregon's choice. If the people of Oregon do not like it they should change the law by changing the law makers.

The problem with experience credit is that many of these schools just give it without assessment, evaluation, or verification, which is selling part of a degree isn't it?

From my understanding the list is of schools that are not accredited or approved for use in Oregon. When a school applies for approval the schools have to show that they meet the standards by showing the processes, procedures, etc. for awarding degrees, so how could they not have the proper resources? How many of these schools are applying? Most on the list try to avoid ANY oversight of their programs which is why they do not seek any approval or accreditation.

Schools need autonomy to determine their own programs and standards within a basic bottom-line law that prevents degree-selling. CCU was a good unaccredited school for 20 years and now is a good accredited school - the accreditation has not changed its nature, merely made its degrees more useable. If someone chooses a non-traditional program they are within their rights to do so, just as an employer will decide whether that degree meets their needs or not. Supporters of the argument you advance above are ultimately anti-freedom, and in many cases their motivation is one of envy - "your degree was easier than mine!" - and snobbery, with each drawing the line immediately under his own feet.

What should that bottom line law be? Should it only prohibit degree selling?

Unlike many, I would like to see one nationwide minimum standard, so that everyone has the same rules. If schools want to be top tier then they could have extraordinary standards, but if a school wants to get by they could get by. However, I completely disagree that schools should be able to grant degrees however they wish. Again, a BS/BA degree should have the same minimum standards throughout. If a person can take a correspondence course and write a 4 page paper at Hamilton for a BS degree, and another can take 4 to 9 open book exams at KWU and write a paper, and then another has to take 40+ courses and spend at least 4 years then the degrees are not the same.

Are you serious? Not only does he act as such, he makes a poor job of it.

No he doesn't. He simply has to approve the ones that apply! All the others are accredited by accreditors. The others are listed as unaccredited and lack Oregon approval unless they apply. He did a poor job by overstepping by labeling, but I have seen no evidence that he does a poor job evaluating the schools that apply. Do you have any?

Schools that apply stand no chance of a fair evaluation. When they have been put on the list as a result of telephone tip-offs and have to pay to be removed, that is no justice. Contreras is in the pocket of degreeinfo; he posts there and listens to a group of the regulars. He allows himself to be linked in the press with the so-called "carpmasters"; Ezell, Bear, Gollin. He poses for photos holding Levicoff's long-dead book. Any idea that he is objective in his work is a joke. Kennedy-Western has shown up ODA for what it is - a busted flush.

Show some proof that the ODA does not do a fair evaluation and I may change my mind, but until then I see this as opinion. And, KWU did not overturn the ODA statute, is still unapproved in Oregon, and their graduates have to add a disclaimer when they use their degree. Looks more like a straight to me.

[J]

So the AU list is not based upon opinion, but the ODA is?

I have the impression that the AU list is not produced with an agenda to denigrate unaccredited and nontraditional schools. It attempts to distinguish between legitimate unaccredited schools and those it considers degree mills. It pretty much gets it right.

ODA has the agenda accredited or no way, except where legal action makes it think otherwise.

[plcscott]

I have the impression that the AU list is not produced with an agenda to denigrate unaccredited and nontraditional schools. It attempts to distinguish between legitimate unaccredited schools and those it considers degree mills. It pretty much gets it right.

ODA has the agenda accredited or no way, except where legal action makes it think otherwise.

With all due respect, that is your opinion. What standards do the people that accredited that list use? Again, it all depends on what the definition of a diploma mill is (which is subjective), or what is legitimate (which is even more subjective).

[J]

Again, it all depends on what the definition of a diploma mill is (which is subjective), or what is legitimate (which is even more subjective).

And it is precisely because there is a legitimate difference of opinion on those matters that those seeking to create lists or other such things in this area should endeavour to be fair-minded to those institutions that are not degree-sellers but have simply developed a nontraditional approach to education outside what is permitted by the accrediting agencies.

The term "diploma mill" is one which I would apply to a degree-selling organisation. However, it is clear that for many who comment on this area, it is merely one of several insults to be directed at any school that operates outside "the system" that they don't like.

[plcscott]

And it is precisely because there is a legitimate difference of opinion on those matters that those seeking to create lists or other such things in this area should endeavour to be fair-minded to those institutions that are not degree-sellers but have simply developed a nontraditional approach to education outside what is permitted by the accrediting agencies.


How fair-minded should they be? Where is the line drawn?

On a scale 120lbs is 120lbs. 30lbs does not equal 120lbs, and 60lbs does not equal 120lbs, but when it comes to these non-traditionals they are they supposed to accept 30 or 60 or even 90 as legitimate when compared to 120?

In boxing the classifications are broken down by weight such as featherweight, bantamweight, lightweight, middleweight, and heavyweight. If someone want to fight in a different class they have to meet weight. If not then they do not qualify.

Or, when you drive down the highway you have minimum speed limits. If you do not travel 45 mph you will get pulled over for not meeting the minimum and fined.

The reason we have grades on test is because we fall within standards. If a teacher gives Johnny a B for a score of 86 and gives Biff a B for a score of 56 then they are not close to the same standard.

So, in educational institutions should there not be standards to meet that are shared throughout? Should we just let some institutions get by with requiring a some work, but passing themselves off as nontraditional universities granting degrees?

Nontraditional should be about alternative ways to meet standards such as correspondence courses, online courses, evaluation and assessment of college level knowledge by exams, certifications, or portfolio, but it shouldn't be about not meeting the same standards.

[Jay2]

That Kennedy Western forced Contreras to back off his mill opinion is proof of the mistakes made by him, Contreras.

That the Oregon Attorney general decided that the head of a state agency, Contreras, needed a lesson in the law is another sign.

That people were able to call Contreras on the phone and get schools on the list and also get the descriptions changed is proof of an opinion run agency.

State agencies must follow the law, not their personal opinions, or the opinions of their friends.

You don't convict first and then have the trial, the trial comes first.

You prove first that a school is a mill and then you call it such, not the other way round.

Only DI does the "Its Unaccredited so it's bad, prove me wrong if you can." Contreras and the State of Oregon can't operate on this principle, why?, because it's not legal.

State colleges in Oregon don't even listen to the ODA. Several have measures in place to accept unaccredited degrees.

An individual unaccredited school is bad if it is, but not because someone "thinks" all unaccredited schools are mills. That's what we call an "AGENDA."

[Jay2]

I repeat, though you don't seem to understand, State Agencies are part of the executive branch of government. They must operate under the laws of the state. They cannot operate on opinion, ideas, probably, likely, maybe, might be, Contreras now knows this. His opinions have no value, only what he can prove/ facts/evidence. He must first prove that Kennedy Western is a degree mill and then he can say it, but not before. Looking in Bear's guide book for his (Bear's) opinions isn't a legal standard, it's just more opinion. That's why we have laws to prevent people from using their own opinions or those of friends to punish in haphazard manner. We have a system of rules and laws in this country and they must be followed or you get whatever each little petty bureaucrat says is the law, but is in reality what he thinks.

CONTRERAS must prove it first and then say it!!! If Contreras is to call schools mills, and if he can't prove it beyond a reasonable doubt, the burden of proof being on Conty not the school, the state of Oregon will be sued, and rightly so. The attorney general of Oregon has reigned in Contreras because he went outside the law and endangered the legal position, not to mention billfold, of Oregon.

[plcscott]

That Kennedy Western forced Contreras to back off his mill opinion is proof of the mistakes made by him, Contreras.

That the Oregon Attorney general decided that the head of a state agency, Contreras, needed a lesson in the law is another sign.

True, I have said that multiple times in this thread and elsewhere.

That people were able to call Contreras on the phone and get schools on the list and also get the descriptions changed is proof of an opinion run agency.

State agencies must follow the law, not their personal opinions, or the opinions of their friends.

He has stated that schools make the list once they are inquired about, and then checked out. He should simply check for proper accreditation, if the schools are not, then they should go on the list. If he did not list some schools because certain people were or had been affiliated with them then I could see where he had an agenda, but since he seems to list any unaccredited schools that are inquired about then that gives no such evidence IMO.

You don't convict first and then have the trial, the trial comes first.

You prove first that a school is a mill and then you call it such, not the other way round.

Again, the labels should be removed, but the list would be completely accurate as to the schools status in Oregon. If a school wants to be removed from the list there are procedures for doing so. It is that simple.

Only DI does the "Its Unaccredited so it's bad, prove me wrong if you can." Contreras and the State of Oregon can't operate on this principle, why?, because it's not legal.

State colleges in Oregon don't even listen to the ODA. Several have measures in place to accept unaccredited degrees.

An individual unaccredited school is bad if it is, but not because someone "thinks" all unaccredited schools are mills. That's what we call an "AGENDA."

There are many people that post on DI that do not say RA or no way, that do not say all unaccredited schools are mills, and that do not call people liars, ******, academic frauds, and so forth. There are some that do, and I have said over and over again that I think it is wrong, just like I think it is wrong to do the same thing in the opposite direction. You continuously bash DI as a whole and lump all of it's members into a group; is that not an agenda? Don't you think it is a little hypocritical to complain about legitimate unaccredited schools being lumped in with diploma mills when you lump all DI members in with a few that are vocal and rude? Is it not an "AGENDA" to have a forum where you bash another forum often, other individuals often, and then do not let anyone that may have a different view post there. From my understanding that is why you so hate DI, yet you do the same thing that was supposedly done to you.

Why don't you pick one of the schools off the Oregon list and asked these registrar's or admission's offices if they will accept a degree from it? That might be an interesting test.

[Neil Hayes]

So the AU list is not based upon opinion, but the ODA is?

This was/is precisely the situation at the ODA. We all know that Knightsbridge was added to the ODA list after a single communication between Rich Douglas and Alan Contreras, but when I communicated with Contreras about this he quite rudely told me he didn't wish to discuss it. You will find that most of the Contreras decisions are based on opinion - his own or the opinions of those 'experts' - whereas the Australian list is based on sound investigations. Even a cursory look through the ODA website revealed over twenty major blunders - KWU and CCU being two of these. In one of my few communications with Contreras I pointed out to him that there was at least four Trinity Colleges & Universities, but he chose to ignore this. And had he chosen to investigate Knightsbridge for even half an hour he would have found some of its courses being endorsed by prominent authorities and managed by academics held in high esteem everywhere.

[plcscott]

This was/is precisely the situation at the ODA. We all know that Knightsbridge was added to the ODA list after a single communication between Rich Douglas and Alan Contreras, but when I communicated with Contreras about this he quite rudely told me he didn't wish to discuss it. You will find that most of the Contreras decisions are based on opinion - his own or the opinions of those 'experts' - whereas the Australian list is based on sound investigations. Even a cursory look through the ODA website revealed over twenty major blunders - KWU and CCU being two of these. In one of my few communications with Contreras I pointed out to him that there was at least four Trinity Colleges & Universities, but he chose to ignore this. And had he chosen to investigate Knightsbridge for even half an hour he would have found some of its courses being endorsed by prominent authorities and managed by academics held in high esteem everywhere.

IMO, Alan C. was wrong for LABELING and DESCRIBING the schools on the list, but not for listing them. If he added Knightsbridge after talking with Rich, and added VIU after talking with someone else then he did so after an inquiry, right? All he should care about is if the school has recognized accreditation according to the Oregon statute; if not, then it is unapproved unless it goes through the process. It should not matter if he thinks Knightsbridge is great; it should be about standards.

[J]

How fair-minded should they be? Where is the line drawn?

On a scale 120lbs is 120lbs. 30lbs does not equal 120lbs, and 60lbs does not equal 120lbs, but when it comes to these non-traditionals they are they supposed to accept 30 or 60 or even 90 as legitimate when compared to 120?

In boxing the classifications are broken down by weight such as featherweight, bantamweight, lightweight, middleweight, and heavyweight. If someone want to fight in a different class they have to meet weight. If not then they do not qualify.

Or, when you drive down the highway you have minimum speed limits. If you do not travel 45 mph you will get pulled over for not meeting the minimum and fined.

Wow, that is simplistic.

All of your examples are quantitative. How do you measure non-quantitative subjects? How about fine art, or literature, or creative writing? Do you really propose that these things can be subjected to quantitative tests, and if so how, without reducing appreciation of artistic achievement to mere bean-counting?

Remember, most unaccredited programs are not in areas of quantitative subjects, tending rather to the liberal arts, humanities and creative subjects. Thus it is not a reasonable statement nor comparison.

[J]

IMO, Alan C. was wrong for LABELING and DESCRIBING the schools on the list, but not for listing them. If he added Knightsbridge after talking with Rich, and added VIU after talking with someone else then he did so after an inquiry, right? All he should care about is if the school has recognized accreditation according to the Oregon statute; if not, then it is unapproved unless it goes through the process. It should not matter if he thinks Knightsbridge is great; it should be about standards.

I don't understand how he can evaluate a Danish school when he isn't prepared to go to Denmark, nor to enter into dialog with the school's vice-chancellor. No accrediting agency would act like that. Not only this, there are dozens of private degree-granting schools in Europe and Contreras has refused to list them. That makes it look like a private vendetta.

I believe his "inquiry" consisted of reading DI and talking with his friends there at most. Tip-offs are no way to make decisions either way.

[RA_Ph.D.]

IMO, Alan C. was wrong for LABELING and DESCRIBING the schools on the list, but not for listing them. If he added Knightsbridge after talking with Rich, and added VIU after talking with someone else then he did so after an inquiry, right? All he should care about is if the school has recognized accreditation according to the Oregon statute; if not, then it is unapproved unless it goes through the process. It should not matter if he thinks Knightsbridge is great; it should be about standards.


You are basically right; standards should be the bottom line. The probelm is the reality. The ODA list is used as one major standard against which to measure and debunk even legitimate unaccredited schools or non-traditional entites. Folks over at DI lead the way in his debunking and use the ODA list as their ammunition. Since DI has many luminary posters (in the small world of DL expertise), its opinions carry disproportionate weight in assessement battles over the merit of various schools. The Knightsbridge debate is an example of this disproportinonality.

Let's do a little test: let some newbie go over to DI and post good things about Kinghtsbridge, challenge some of the "big mouths" there and let's see how long that new poster survives before being banned------ Any bets on a time frame?

[plcscott]

Wow, that is simplistic.

All of your examples are quantitative. How do you measure non-quantitative subjects? How about fine art, or literature, or creative writing? Do you really propose that these things can be subjected to quantitative tests, and if so how, without reducing appreciation of artistic achievement to mere bean-counting?

How do they measure them in traditional programs? If you major in Art at a traditional liberal arts college do you somehow have to complete less number of courses? Would you somehow be required to show less knowledge?

Remember, most unaccredited programs are not in areas of quantitative subjects, tending rather to the liberal arts, humanities and creative subjects. Thus it is not a reasonable statement nor comparison.

huh? Funny most of the ones that I know about like KWU, PWU, Century, etc. mostly offer business, engineering, computer science, health administration, management, finance, etc.

[plcscott]

I wasn't aware that Knightsbridge had applied for approval with the ODA. If it has and the ODA ignored them, and would not accept any application, correspondence, or information from them then Knightsbridge should hire an attorney in Oregon and sue the ODA. Shame on the ODA if a school makes application and it is ignored, but the question is did it apply?

I do agree that many point to this list as a reference, and it should only apply to Oregon. However, I again say that there is a procedure for being removed from it if a school cares to, and if not it has to live with it (a consequence of being unaccredited).

In regards to testing DI, I agree that a newbie will not fair well promoting Knightsbridge at DI (especially without some hard facts). Though I do not agree with the tactics or temper of some there, I have learned a lot there and tend to agree with most more than I disagree. I am not so bullheaded that I will not listen to someone even if I do not like what he or she is saying. DI is much like other sites certain people get by with more than others. Fortunately this site seems to be pretty balanced, and I hope it stays that way. Collegehints had a good moderator, but some took advantage of him.

[J]

How do they measure them in traditional programs? If you major in Art at a traditional liberal arts college do you somehow have to complete less number of courses? Would you somehow be required to show less knowledge?

It is not an issue of the number of courses so much as the way assessment is conducted. Assessment in these subjects rests very much upon the quality of the assessors and the value one attaches to their artistic judgements. Apart from statements as to technical matters, artistic judgement is an almost impossible area to quantify. What it comes down to is trust in the institution and its faculty. That is the same whether we are at Harvard or at Century. If Century starts attracting faculty of high repute, people will be drawn there because they respect the quality of those people's judgement and want to study under them. Nevertheless, it is recognised that substantial difference of opinion on those areas can take place and that this can reflect in marks awarded.

For an extreme example of how these things can be less than objective, try presenting a dissertation arguing for scientific creationism at a fundie Baptist seminary and see how far you get. Truth is, similar things go on all over academia, accredited and not.

huh? Funny most of the ones that I know about like KWU, PWU, Century, etc. mostly offer business, engineering, computer science, health administration, management, finance, etc.

PWU Hawaii (now APWU) has a strong liberal and fine arts contingent. Heed has a school of humanities. CCWU has a full arts program. Fairfax has a school of aesthetic and performing arts. Knightsbridge offers programs in the arts. I could continue...

[J]

Fortunately this site seems to be pretty balanced, and I hope it stays that way.

That is certainly our plan. Opinion from all sides of the spectrum is posted here, this thread being a good example.

[J]

I wasn't aware that Knightsbridge had applied for approval with the ODA. If it has and the ODA ignored them, and would not accept any application, correspondence, or information from them then Knightsbridge should hire an attorney in Oregon and sue the ODA. Shame on the ODA if a school makes application and it is ignored, but the question is did it apply?

I think the issue is that KU doesn't think it will get a fair hearing. If Contreras is prepared to put the school on the list on the basis of Rich Douglas's tip-off, and Rich then goes to DI and brags about it, and Contreras then chooses that forum to post and associates with its regulars, some are going to see that as heavy bias. KU could pay them twice what they are asking; with Contreras as judge, jury and executioner, they know the outcome before they have even started.

In any case, the Kennedy-Western settlement will lead to other schools on the list being able to cite it as a precedent; the days of Contreras being able to say what he and his cronies please without any kind of accountability are very numbered indeed. They have won the settlement; if other schools are happy with that, there is no need for them to do anything except wait.

[dr. latin juris]

In addition, I believe that Alan and the Justice Department receive a good quality legal message of the official ADVOCATUS and Legal representatives of Central States University.

That is why Alan transforms the cataloging of Central States University, from degree mill, to unaccredited.
:)

[Neil Hayes]

[QUOTE=plcscott]I wasn't aware that Knightsbridge had applied for approval with the ODA. If it has and the ODA ignored them, and would not accept any application, correspondence, or information from them then Knightsbridge should hire an attorney in Oregon and sue the ODA. Shame on the ODA if a school makes application and it is ignored, but the question is did it apply?
QUOTE]

I don't think you will see KU ever making an application to the ODA, but I do know that KU spent sometime communicating with Contreras - after KU appeared in the ODA Diploma Mill list. But, as usual, Contreras chose to ignore KU and take the word of Rich Douglas - a person who has consistently chosen to make blatantly ill-informed comments about KU.

[RA_Ph.D.]

That is certainly our plan. Opinion from all sides of the spectrum is posted here, this thread being a good example.


:) :) So far I have seen differences of point of view with no name calling or snide put-downs. I hope all members continue their remarks in this vein.

[Dennis Ruhl]

But, as usual, Contreras chose to ignore KU and take the word of Rich Douglas - a person who has consistently chosen to make blatantly ill-informed comments about KU.

It's not as if Rich hasn't offered blatantly ill-informed comments about everything else. What can I say? He's consistent.

[Robert J.]

This needs to get back on topic of the ODA and it's debate, not snide remarks about people.

[dr. latin juris]

ODA, do you work, however with a fair DUE PROCESS

That desire of US people that pronounce:

“The idea that laws and legal proceedings must be fair.”

http://www.lectlaw.com/def/d080.htm
:D

[plcscott]

If KU or any other school is not going to apply for approval then I do not see that they have anything to complain about if they are listed as unaccredited and unapproved for use in Oregon. If they are labeled as a diploma mill even though they have not been evaluated then I could understand their complaint, but OR should have the right to not accept schools that they do not see as meeting their standards IMO.

Has anyone (such as KU) requested an application for approval to see what the criteria is, or does everyone just assume that it subjective and totally Alan C's call?

It would make this topic much more interesting if we found out that the ODA did not have objective standards for evaluating schools. I might would even change my opinion if that were the case, otherwise I support what the ODA is trying to do.

[plcscott]

:) :) So far I have seen differences of point of view with no name calling or snide put-downs. I hope all members continue their remarks in this vein.

You spoke a little too soon. :D

[dr. latin juris]

Ba, Dale una paleta!

What standards, the same that says that CCU no meet the requirement in Oregon but the same day, DETC say that CCU meet the standards in all US.

The prejudiced, and secret calls are evident.

[plcscott]

Ba, Dale una paleta!

What standards, the same that says that CCU no meet the requirement in Oregon but the same day, DETC say that CCU meet the standards in all US.

The prejudiced, and secret calls are evident.

dr:

Did CCU apply to Oregon? They do not evaluate unless you apply, get it? If they did not apply then why do you keep repeating this?

Deseo realmente que usted hablaría inglés. Tengo un tiempo duro que entiende usted.

[J]

Los caballeros, vamos hablar inglés!

I think we have pretty much established our respective positions here, and if we continue in this vein it will simply degenerate into the acrimonious facing off of diametrically opposed opinions.

Maybe it is time to simply let the issue be and accept we differ rather than carry on beating each other up.

[plcscott]

Los caballeros, vamos hablar inglés!

I think we have pretty much established our respective positions here, and if we continue in this vein it will simply degenerate into the acrimonious facing off of diametrically opposed opinions.

Maybe it is time to simply let the issue be and accept we differ rather than carry on beating each other up.

No problem, and no beating each other up either. We are all adults, and should be able to disagree without getting our feelings hurt. Personally, I do not have a dog in this fight anyway. I do not think the ODA is perfect, but at least it makes an attempt to do something about the issue.

This is like politics everybody always complains about what is being done, yet does not offer an alternative solution. I believe in taking a stand, but not being so bullheaded that you won't change your mind.

[dr. latin juris]

This is like politics everybody always complains about what is being done, yet does not offer an alternative solution. I believe in taking a stand, but not being so bullheaded that you won't change your mind.

Plcscott,yet again.

The intensions of ODA are great and magnificent; however, they necessitate to doing the work (investigation and collect evidence) with a fine Due Process and summit all the evidence to a neutral Administrative Judge.

Is that so complicated to perform in ODA?

DUE PROCESS, learn by heart, that fantastic inspiration of US citizens and immigrates citizens that the US law and legal actions must be fair.

Keep in mind, top-secret touchtone phone calls and one-sided judgment, not guarantees a fine due process.

Is that so complicated to perform in ODA?

Is that so difficult to comprehend?

A supplementary point my board buddy, no trouble, is not personal. :)

[RA_Ph.D.]

Los caballeros, vamos hablar inglés!

I think we have pretty much established our respective positions here, and if we continue in this vein it will simply degenerate into the acrimonious facing off of diametrically opposed opinions.

Maybe it is time to simply let the issue be and accept we differ rather than carry on beating each other up.

I don't see any agenda here in any of the posts; I do see some honest disagreement about the best way to inform and protect potential DL students from fraud and at the same time maintain a free market in the DL education sector. It may be important to have some lists, like the Aussie one, as a starting point. I object to blacklisting rather than informational listing. ODA is for Oregon and it should stay that way; perhaps I should go out there with a business card naming a school or two on the "index prohibitorum" (sounds so medieval, doesn't it ?) and see what happens. I am a firm believer in free speech and in free educational choice of degrees, too. Public opinion has a great influence on the viability of any degree. I'm not too worried that academic frauds will win the upper hand. But as long as my degree title was issued legally, even if it is academically worthless (job for a professional society or licensure board to determine), I should be free to list it on my business card as long as I do not defraud anyone by claiming that is represents more than it, in fact, does.

[dr. latin juris]

For me, the best Government List about unaccredited institution of higher education is the Hawaii List. :lol:

They put the university, the legal action take by the Hawaii Ejective Power (Brunton Office) and the judgment made by the Juridical Supremacy (A neutral Judge).

In that sort of process, both parts can present their particular evidences and analysis. Then, with that good process, the Neutral Judge, make the resolution or Decision based in the preponderance of the evidence.

In addition, the procedure is so higher, that each part can go to a superior Court, to appeal the first judgment.

This kind of process is better than ODA or Michigan

[Neil Hayes]

I don't see any agenda here in any of the posts; I do see some honest disagreement about the best way to inform and protect potential DL students from fraud and at the same time maintain a free market in the DL education sector. It may be important to have some lists, like the Aussie one, as a starting point. I object to blacklisting rather than informational listing. ODA is for Oregon and it should stay that way; perhaps I should go out there with a business card naming a school or two on the "index prohibitorum" (sounds so medieval, doesn't it ?) and see what happens. I am a firm believer in free speech and in free educational choice of degrees, too. Public opinion has a great influence on the viability of any degree. I'm not too worried that academic frauds will win the upper hand. But as long as my degree title was issued legally, even if it is academically worthless (job for a professional society or licensure board to determine), I should be free to list it on my business card as long as I do not defraud anyone by claiming that is represents more than it, in fact, does.

Some months after I earned my Knightsbridge PhD I put the degree through the most stringent utility test I could think of. I applied for membership of one of the UK's most prestigious Royal Chartered institutions. Ten years earlier I'd applied for membership to the same institution, only to be informed that my qualifications were not of a sufficiently high standard. But armed with a Knightsbridge degree I gained membership. Yet according to the one man ODA band Knightsbridge is a mill!

[RA_Ph.D.]

Some months after I earned my Knightsbridge PhD I put the degree through the most stringent utility test I could think of. I applied for membership of one of the UK's most prestigious Royal Chartered institutions. Ten years earlier I'd applied for membership to the same institution, only to be informed that my qualifications were not of a sufficiently high standard. But armed with a Knightsbridge degree I gained membership. Yet according to the one man ODA band Knightsbridge is a mill!

Some of your better-known colleagues over at DegreeInfo, who have low tolerance for any unconventional educational institutions, seem to believe the ODA most firmly, or did they influenced the ODA to list Knightsbridge according to that label ? Perhaps they need some re-education. :lol: :lol: :lol:

[michael]

This thread is now closed.