The AU and ODA list [Archive] - Degreeboard.com, Inc.

plcscott

01-17-2005, 04:49 AM

I believe George Brown had a major involvement in the production of the list and that, unlike Contreras, he researched the operation of each school on the lists.

If George Brown did help with this list I am sure he did a lot of objective research, but do we have any evidence of that? What makes you think that George Brown did research, but Alan C. did not? Is there evidence of this? From what I have seen we have no evidence of how either list was formed.

Again, I say that the ODA is wrong for labeling schools mills, but I think the reason most try to demonize the ODA is because they object to certain schools being on the list.

I just do not see the disconnect between the two. If we had the standards and research presented by the Au list then I might agree, but I do not see any evidence that either has used objective standards or research to list schools as diploma mills.

If the ODA's list was simply based on accreditation or approval then I do not think anyone would have a legitimate complaint. I think that is originally how the law was meant to work. If the ODA just listed schools as unaccredited and lacks the ODA's approval then schools that wanted to be approved in Oregon would either need to go through the process or become accredited.

I am not going to trash the ODA and Alan C. unless I see evidence that the ODA does not give any school that applies an objective evaluation based on objective standards. If that evidence is clearly brought forth then I will agree that the ODA should be shut down and Alan C. should be fired.

plcscott

01-17-2005, 05:25 AM

The ODA provides a link to the George's site at the bottom of the unaccredited page here (http://www.osac.state.or.us/oda/unaccredited.html), and they list many of the same schools.

For access to Australia’s 24 hour, 7 day a week higher education credential verification system (degreeoftruth Australia), click on the following link: http://www.degreeoftruth.com.au/home.htm

So, what are we supposed to take from that?

Neil Hayes

01-17-2005, 06:15 AM

If George Brown did help with this list I am sure he did a lot of objective research, but do we have any evidence of that? What makes you think that George Brown did research, but Alan C. did not? Is there evidence of this? From what I have seen we have no evidence of how either list was formed.
Again, I say that the ODA is wrong for labeling schools mills, but I think the reason most try to demonize the ODA is because they object to certain schools being on the list.
I just do not see the disconnect between the two. If we had the standards and research presented by the Au list then I might agree, but I do not see any evidence that either has used objective standards or research to list schools as diploma mills.
If the ODA's list was simply based on accreditation or approval then I do not think anyone would have a legitimate complaint. I think that is originally how the law was meant to work. If the ODA just listed schools as unaccredited and lacks the ODA's approval then schools that wanted to be approved in Oregon would either need to go through the process or become accredited.
I am not going to trash the ODA and Alan C. unless I see evidence that the ODA does not give any school that applies an objective evaluation based on objective standards. If that evidence is clearly brought forth then I will agree that the ODA should be shut down and Alan C. should be fired.

We all know that communications between between Rich Douglas and the ODA office has seen a number of independent universities added to the Contreras list, and that Contreras is a one-man band playing the "RA or no way" theme music. In another thread on this channel he has already proven to be an extremely devious individual and no one needs to trash him as he does it all by himself very successfully. By comparison George Brown is a person of high integrity who has probably forgotten more about degree mills and unaccredited schools than AC ever knew.
As I've said before - the ODA lists and website were a good idea, but their creation and implementation falls far below anything that is of any value to anyone looking for reliable information, as the lists and website are full of errors and subjective opinions.

plcscott

01-17-2005, 11:50 AM

We all know that communications between between Rich Douglas and the ODA office has seen a number of independent universities added to the Contreras list, and that Contreras is a one-man band playing the "RA or no way" theme music. In another thread on this channel he has already proven to be an extremely devious individual and no one needs to trash him as he does it all by himself very successfully. By comparison George Brown is a person of high integrity who has probably forgotten more about degree mills and unaccredited schools than AC ever knew.
As I've said before - the ODA lists and website were a good idea, but their creation and implementation falls far below anything that is of any value to anyone looking for reliable information, as the lists and website are full of errors and subjective opinions.

Neil, with all due respect, I do not see how you can say Alan C. is playing "RA or no way" music. I could understand if you say he plays "accredited or ODA approved or no way", but not RA. Any CHEA recognized accreditation gets a school removed from the ODA list, and CCU was quickly removed the same day it announced it's accreditation by DETC.

Secondly, it is just your opinion that Alan C. is extremely devious, and that George Brown is a person of high integrity and knows much more about diploma mills. I do not agree with the ODA on some things, but I just do not have enough evidence to call him extremely devious or many of the other names he/it has been called and then praise the other, especially when both list are a lot more alike than they are different.

Lastly, one of the things I found that was fair was that around the same time that Rich supposedly talked to the ODA a certain school was added, and then the school that Rich worked at was added shortly after. How was that for fairness? It ticked off both parties, and to me it showed fairness. Both schools were inquired about, checked out for accreditation, and added to the list. Sure seems fair to me.

01-17-2005, 12:07 PM

Lastly, one of the things I found that was fair was that around the same time that Rich supposedly talked to the ODA a certain school was added, and then the school that Rich worked at was added shortly after. How was that for fairness? It ticked off both parties, and to me it showed fairness. Both schools were inquired about, checked out for accreditation, and added to the list. Sure seems fair to me.

The point is that the ODA label schools, then says 'there is a process if you want us to stop labelling you, you must go through it, and it will cost you'. Don't you understand that the labelling must come after the process, not before? Before the process, all that ODA should state next to a name is whether or not degrees of the school are acceptable pertinent to the legislation discussed.

The alternative is that justice works like this: you shoot first and ask questions later. I know countries where law enforcement works that way and I wouldn't choose to live in them.

plcscott

01-17-2005, 12:51 PM

The point is that the ODA label schools, then says 'there is a process if you want us to stop labelling you, you must go through it, and it will cost you'. Don't you understand that the labelling must come after the process, not before? Before the process, all that ODA should state next to a name is whether or not degrees of the school are acceptable pertinent to the legislation discussed.

The alternative is that justice works like this: you shoot first and ask questions later. I know countries where law enforcement works that way and I wouldn't choose to live in them.

Exactly my point. The ODA should not label, but only list schools that are unaccredited and lack ODA approval. If they did that then who could complain about the ODA? At least the ODA has a process for being removed from such a list. Does the AU list have such a process?

I think that more people should get upset at the schools that are not up to the standards than at the ODA, the reporters, the gov't, the experts that write books, do research, and create list, and everyone else they can blame things on. It is the diploma mill schools, or the ones that very substandard that cause such laws in the first place.

Personally, I think that there should be national minimum standards set for all colleges and universities that grant degrees. If schools could not meet the minimum standards then they should be illegal.

01-17-2005, 08:22 PM

Personally, I think that there should be national minimum standards set for all colleges and universities that grant degrees. If schools could not meet the minimum standards then they should be illegal.

I don't favour state control of education. I think it is a basic human right to choose whatever form of education you wish, whether orthodox or not.

I do think the message should be got across to those choosing a school that an accredited school is likely to be a sensible choice if you want to use your degree as a credential in employment where accredited degrees are required or for further study in an accredited school, although as James has showed, there are certainly some exceptions.

But there is more to education than that. The freedom that is part of educational choice is part of the freedom of speech and thought that all of us living in a democratic society enjoy. If KWU or whoever is not for you, fine. But as has often been discussed, one man's diploma mill is another's alternative school. The freedom to create an alternative to what "the system" offers in education is vital. That is not possible where the state exercises a stranglehold.

One compromise that I favour is an anti-degree-selling law, making the selling of documents purporting to be university degrees outright illegal. A lot of fraud takes place not from unaccredited schools but from those who buy a Harvard "degree" from a "lost diploma replacement service". My view is that these services should be outlawed, but I don't see ODA or its fellows doing anything about it. I think it would also be easy to control the use of the word "accreditation" in law to prevent it being applied to unrecognised agencies in the US. Again, this isn't happening. What is going on instead is a campaign against unaccredited schools.

If, as was reported on the UAF thread, ODA actually has a "secret list" of schools, its agenda would stand exposed. My suspicion is that this is the case, and that suspicion is substantiated by the shoddy and partisan way ODA has conducted itself thus far.

plcscott

01-17-2005, 10:20 PM

I don't favour state control of education. I think it is a basic human right to choose whatever form of education you wish, whether orthodox or not.

As do I, but I don't think that schools should be able to grant degrees without meeting a minimum standard.

I do think the message should be got across to those choosing a school that an accredited school is likely to be a sensible choice if you want to use your degree as a credential in employment where accredited degrees are required or for further study in an accredited school, although as James has showed, there are certainly some exceptions.

But there is more to education than that. The freedom that is part of educational choice is part of the freedom of speech and thought that all of us living in a democratic society enjoy. If KWU or whoever is not for you, fine. But as has often been discussed, one man's diploma mill is another's alternative school. The freedom to create an alternative to what "the system" offers in education is vital. That is not possible where the state exercises a stranglehold.

I used to feel this way, but I have changed my view and this is why. A person can study, learn, or be educated in any way a person wants, but the problem is we are not talking about certificate programs or non credit programs we are talking about degree granting institutions. If a degree is a level of academic achievement then that level should be a set standard in order for it to mean something. If you are suggesting that any school that does not outright sell degrees should be completely legal to do so then I completely disagree. If that is the case then Hamilton with it's reported correspondence course and 4 page paper requirement should be completely legal to grant university degrees since they do not just sell degrees.

If there is not a line drawn as to how much minimum work is necessary then some "universities" will ride as close to the line of selling degrees as they can. This devalues the achievement, and causes a degree to be less of an award. It just isn't fair for someone to pay for and do a little work and earn a bachelors, masters, and doctorate in a year or so, when it takes others that do it the right way 8 to 12 years to do the same.

One compromise that I favour is an anti-degree-selling law, making the selling of documents purporting to be university degrees outright illegal. A lot of fraud takes place not from unaccredited schools but from those who buy a Harvard "degree" from a "lost diploma replacement service". My view is that these services should be outlawed, but I don't see ODA or its fellows doing anything about it. I think it would also be easy to control the use of the word "accreditation" in law to prevent it being applied to unrecognised agencies in the US. Again, this isn't happening. What is going on instead is a campaign against unaccredited schools.

The whole purpose of the ODA is to protect the people who earned a degree the right way and their employers from people claiming degrees that are not at the similar academic standards isn't it? The whole problem with the unaccredited and unapproved schools is that they do not have to answer to any oversight which is why many of them have low standards and bad practices. It is not because they are unorthodox, it is because they want to get by with providing as little education as possible.

If, as was reported on the UAF thread, ODA actually has a "secret list" of schools, its agenda would stand exposed. My suspicion is that this is the case, and that suspicion is substantiated by the shoddy and partisan way ODA has conducted itself thus far.

The ODA's list says this on the website at the bottom of the page:

This is by no means an exhaustive list of institutions whose degrees cannot be used in Oregon. It is a list of those most recently reported.

Obviously, the list is greater than what is on the website. I suspect that the attacks on the ODA come from partisan people that may themselves have an agenda. I would sure like to see some evidence of the ODA's partisan agenda rather than all the speculation of it.

01-17-2005, 10:54 PM

I used to feel this way, but I have changed my view and this is why. A person can study, learn, or be educated in any way a person wants, but the problem is we are not talking about certificate programs or non credit programs we are talking about degree granting institutions. If a degree is a level of academic achievement then that level should be a set standard in order for it to mean something. If you are suggesting that any school that does not outright sell degrees should be completely legal to do so then I completely disagree. If that is the case then Hamilton with it's reported correspondence course and 4 page paper requirement should be completely legal to grant university degrees since they do not just sell degrees.

Hamilton was legal until very recently. That does not make it a good school, still less a recommendable school. I would argue, however, that the correct way of dealing with Hamilton is for institutions to make it clear that its degrees are not acceptable for a given purpose. There is no need to criminalise its graduates for their choice, even though it is one I would have done much to advise them against. The responsibility is with the HR department to establish what the graduate did to earn their degree, what the standards of the institution are, and whether those things meet their needs. My guess is in all cases they won't. That puts Hamilton where it should be - a legal choice but one with no academic standing in institutional circles. If an institution accepts a Hamilton degree without checking carefully what it is, and then it proves unacceptable when they find out, it is they that have failed in their due diligence in the first place.

If there is not a line drawn as to how much minimum work is necessary then some "universities" will ride as close to the line of selling degrees as they can. This devalues the achievement, and causes a degree to be less of an award. It just isn't fair for someone to pay for and do a little work and earn a bachelors, masters, and doctorate in a year or so, when it takes others that do it the right way 8 to 12 years to do the same.

This is the argument I see most often put forward - ultimately one of self-interest. "His degree was easier than mine - it's not fair!". This is the politics of envy. What we need is for employers to differentiate beyond the simple "does he have a degree" to "what does his degree mean". The reason why your argument falls down is because employers already do this. They know that an AB from Harvard means more than one from University of Alaska, for example. That's why Harvard is harder to get into. They also know that both mean more than one from KWU. But that doesn't mean that holding any of these will not mean that degree hasn't a specific value in given circumstances - just that this value isn't the same.

So the reality is that degrees have a relative, not an absolute value. History shows this and it is as true today as it was a hundred years ago. Beyond the most basic of outlines, there is immense diversity in the requirements for degrees that have the same designation throughout the world. To pretend otherwise is to deny the obvious. Even the RA associations cannot agree between them on what is acceptable. Try starting a Charter Oak-type PLA bachelors' program in CA and see what I mean.

The whole purpose of the ODA is to protect the people who earned a degree the right way and their employers from people claiming degrees that are not at the similar academic standards isn't it? The whole problem with the unaccredited and unapproved schools is that they do not have to answer to any oversight which is why many of them have low standards and bad practices. It is not because they are unorthodox, it is because they want to get by with providing as little education as possible.

Your generalization is based on a false premise that degrees represent absolute rather than relative values, as I discussed above. They don't, nor should they. What's more, earning a degree is not about a "right" or "wrong" way. Education is as personal as those who participate in it. The process of education is no more that of a crime than is thinking differently from the prevailing hegemony. That this line has become blurred is indicative of a shrill consumer activism that seeks to cast itself as the educational thought police.

You could find programs at CA-approved schools or at some religious unaccredited schools that are ground-breaking and are offered nowhere else. The fact that some unaccredited schools have low standards emphatically does not mean that all do.

Obviously, the list is greater than what is on the website. I suspect that the attacks on the ODA come from partisan people that may themselves have an agenda. I would sure like to see some evidence of the ODA's partisan agenda rather than all the speculation of it.

In the event that they have a "hidden list" that will be all the proof I need.

As for partisans, I can assure you that there are very few on either side of this argument who don't have a vested interest.

plcscott

01-18-2005, 12:35 AM

Hamilton was legal until very recently. That does not make it a good school, still less a recommendable school. I would argue, however, that the correct way of dealing with Hamilton is for institutions to make it clear that its degrees are not acceptable for a given purpose. There is no need to criminalise its graduates for their choice, even though it is one I would have done much to advise them against. The responsibility is with the HR department to establish what the graduate did to earn their degree, what the standards of the institution are, and whether those things meet their needs. My guess is in all cases they won't. That puts Hamilton where it should be - a legal choice but one with no academic standing in institutional circles. If an institution accepts a Hamilton degree without checking carefully what it is, and then it proves unacceptable when they find out, it is they that have failed in their due diligence in the first place.

These HR people should have an "S" on their chest, and sport a cape. We sure would not want to put any responsibility on these "institutions" or their consumers that are claiming an academic achievement that most people consider to be at a certain level, so I guess we have to put it on the competence of the HR person. When I first got into this nontraditional education I did not know the difference between the good schools and the bad, or much about accreditation, and I bet that most HR people do not either.

This is the argument I see most often put forward - ultimately one of self-interest. "His degree was easier than mine - it's not fair!". This is the politics of envy. What we need is for employers to differentiate beyond the simple "does he have a degree" to "what does his degree mean". The reason why your argument falls down is because employers already do this. They know that an AB from Harvard means more than one from University of Alaska, for example. That's why Harvard is harder to get into. They also know that both mean more than one from KWU. But that doesn't mean that holding any of these will not mean that degree hasn't a specific value in given circumstances - just that this value isn't the same.

The difference between Harvard and UOA may be reputation and quality of education, but not quantity. A bachelors degree at either institution will be very close to 120 hours and both will meet minimum competencies in certain subjects, but KWU's minimum requirements are not known even by the students and alumni. They will not publish requirements and they are not the same for two individuals that have roughly the same qualifications coming in. They will not tell what their magic formula is to determine each persons requirements, and everyone receives a liberal amount of life experience without assessment or verification. This is why such schools are substandard, and why the degrees are not the same.

So the reality is that degrees have a relative, not an absolute value. History shows this and it is as true today as it was a hundred years ago. Beyond the most basic of outlines, there is immense diversity in the requirements for degrees that have the same designation throughout the world. To pretend otherwise is to deny the obvious. Even the RA associations cannot agree between them on what is acceptable. Try starting a Charter Oak-type PLA bachelors' program in CA and see what I mean.

I disagree. Most all accredited schools share the same minimum standards (or as you say basic outlines) in quantity which is an absolute whether for a AA, BA, MA, or PhD. To pretend that most schools do not share basic standards is to deny the obvious. An associate's degree is a two year degree usually at minimum 60 hours, a bachelor's is a 4 year degree usually 120 hours, and a masters is usually a bachelor's plus 30 or so, etc. The main differences in accreditors or schools are minor in comparison to the difference between many of the diploma mills or substandard schools listed, and legitimate accredited schools.

Your generalization is based on a false premise that degrees represent absolute rather than relative values, as I discussed above. They don't, nor should they. What's more, earning a degree is not about a "right" or "wrong" way. Education is as personal as those who participate in it. The process of education is no more that of a crime than is thinking differently from the prevailing hegemony. That this line has become blurred is indicative of a shrill consumer activism that seeks to cast itself as the educational thought police.

Education may be personal, but degree granting should mean something. If not then it cheapens the process. The line blurring is the whole problem IMO, and is exactly why degrees have little meaning if everyone can get one without having met certain standards. If one can get one with a resume and a essay, another takes a few exams and writes a paper, and another works for 4 years fulltime, yet all say the exact same thing then the line is for sure blurred!

RA_Ph.D.

01-18-2005, 02:17 AM

Education may be personal, but degree granting should mean something. If not then it cheapens the process. The line blurring is the whole problem IMO, and is exactly why degrees have little meaning if everyone can get one without having met certain standards. If one can get one with a resume and a essay, another takes a few exams and writes a paper, and another works for 4 years fulltime, yet all say the exact same thing then the line is for sure blurred!

Thr reality is that degree difficulties vary even within the same (legitimate) institution. From personal knowledge, I have seen dissertations written on American literature topics that I could have knocked out in three months vs. long-term dissertation projects, loaded with numerous foreign languages that took years to master--same Ph.D. in the same university --or is it the same Ph.D.? Some guy working away on an Akkadian-Sumerian lexicon list for years vs. some guy who writes up his personal experience coaching baseball in a school for his dissertation: Who does more work ? How do you measure that ? I have definite opinions, but that's why I'm not in charge of anything, because I have expressed those views and they are unpopular.

I just don't think degrees can be standardized across international lines or perhaps even within national bounderies as large as the U.S. That's why a good education is necessary in order to tell if another individual has an education (irrespective of degrees) and not just a certification. Again, that's why mills don't distrurb me as much as they do some folks. Mills don't give an education whereas some legitimate institutions do offer at least that to those who wish to work for it. Most of what is debated on DL fora are issues of certification, not education per se. Nobody is saying that certification isn't important--perhaps more important than education--a shame but a reality.

A-N

01-18-2005, 02:35 AM

[QUOTE=plcscott]These HR people should have an "S" on their chest, and sport a cape. We sure would not want to put any responsibility on these "institutions" or their consumers that are claiming an academic achievement that most people consider to be at a certain level, so I guess we have to put it on the competence of the HR person. When I first got into this nontraditional education I did not know the difference between the good schools and the bad, or much about accreditation, and I bet that most HR people do not either............................................ .................................................. ...............

plc, I think you are missing the point here:
HR people are supposed to be trained, to some extent at least and if I am not mistaken, part of their job is to confirm and verify academic credentials, so yes in my opinion they are supposed to know and to check, confirm and verify a prospective employees' credentials.

Neil Hayes

01-18-2005, 02:42 AM

[QUOTE=A-N
plc, I think you are missing the point here:
HR people are supposed to be trained, to some extent at least and if I am not mistaken, part of their job is to confirm and verify academic credentials, so yes in my opinion they are supposed to know and to check, confirm and verify a prospective employees' credentials.[/QUOTE]

This came out very clearly when John Davy, Maori TV CEO, was caught with a fraudulent degree - after he'd been doing the job for several months. A very up-market HR company hired John Davy and the company disappeared without trace when John went to jail. The whole of NZ expected the company to have seriously investigated John's CV!

plcscott

01-18-2005, 03:09 AM

plc, I think you are missing the point here:
HR people are supposed to be trained, to some extent at least and if I am not mistaken, part of their job is to confirm and verify academic credentials, so yes in my opinion they are supposed to know and to check, confirm and verify a prospective employees' credentials.

I don't. How is an HR person supposed know the educational quality of an institution that grants a degree, and gives a person credits on a transcript that the person did not earn? Some of these schools have very professional looking sheepskin and very professional looking transcripts, yet much of what is on them is simply BS. Some of these schools will allow people to pay extra for honors, or allow you to chose what is on a transcript. Some of these schools give credit for experience that has not been assessed ot verified, and it is simply given because you filled out an application or sent in a resume. This is corupt any way that you look at it, and is meant to deceive. But, I guess if the HR person does not catch it then it is just Oke Dokee then, and these schools with such practices are totally in there right. I think that is bunk. These schools are blurring the line, and demeaning the value of what an academic achievement is.

If a score of 70 is the passing grade on an exam, should some be allowed to pass with a score of 30 because they do not like the standard of 70? If not, then how the heck can a most all institutions have a minimum of 120 hours for a bachelors degree, but these substandard schools or these degree mills get by with anywhere from nothing to 36 and award the same degree?

I am all for nontraditional education and finding alternative ways to earn credits, but everyone should play with roughly the same rules, or the game isn't fair. These bad schools do not play by any rules because there is no referee, or playbook.

dr. latin juris

01-18-2005, 05:26 AM

ODA, the Press and everybody in the Internet can do and create a List.

However, if a person (Natural or Juridical) create a list of unaccredited US officially authorized State Approved ~Licensed universities, and says that x university in that list is a degree mill, or that is no acceptable for x reason, the creator necessitate to have rock-hard evidence to support that kind of arguments in a Court.

The Creator of a libelous and Subjective inventory, need to keep in mind that a Legal Representative of an officially authorized State Approved University, may possibly ask over a quantity of questions in a Court. In addition, the creator, need to be prepared with good evidence to proof he’s arguments.

Because FACTUM INFECTUM FIERI NEQUIT, if the creator of the Subjective List do not can proof the arguments in Court = the person is going to be castigated by the Court extremely tough.

George Brown

01-18-2005, 05:43 AM

I believe George Brown had a major involvement in the production of the list and that, unlike Contreras, he researched the operation of each school on the lists.

WHOAH, WHOAH WHOAH!!! Hang on a minute gentlemen. I have commented on the AU list for some time now and I have always said the following - I never had anything to do with its formulation. A journalist from the HigherEd section of the Australian developed it, without any consultation with me or from any other (from my understanding). My opinion of the list? Totally unresearched, and very very dangerous. Notice that is has been pulled down from the Australian website? Ever wondered why?

The AU list was developed by a newspaper - nothing more. And it never had any endorsement from any government authority in Australia.

Cheers,

George

plcscott

01-18-2005, 06:03 AM

George,

Thanks for some very interesting information which really adds to this discussion. I would be very interested to hear your opinion on any of what has been discussed. Do you think the ODA is part of an agenda or accreditation conspiracy? Do you think the ODA is wrong for calling schools mills?

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Now if it is George's opinion is that the Au list is unresearched by the reporter then how in the world could it be so much better than the ODA's list?

Again I say, the ODA is wrong to label schools as a mill, substandard, or anything else. They should all go under the same category of unaccredited and unapproved for use in Oregon IMHO. Each of these unaccredited schools listed should be given the same process and standards for evaluation to go by to be approved. Oregon nor any other state should have to accept the lax laws or standards of other states, should they?

George Brown

01-18-2005, 07:00 AM

The ODA is doing its legislated job. However, I have always argued that it is both a formidable and, to a point, impossible task. I ascribe to Bear's assertion that all schools sit on a continuum of legitimacy. At either ends they are black and white, and these can be easily categorised. The middle ground is the dangerous and impossible area IMHO. The 'substandard' etc categories just do not work, and I think this has been mirrored on the ODA site as it has chopped and changed in orderd to strive for some all encapsulating criteria. Unfortunately, I do not think it exists.

Cheers,

George

Neil Hayes

01-18-2005, 08:10 AM

WHOAH, WHOAH WHOAH!!! Hang on a minute gentlemen. I have commented on the AU list for some time now and I have always said the following - I never had anything to do with its formulation. A journalist from the HigherEd section of the Australian developed it, without any consultation with me or from any other (from my understanding). My opinion of the list? Totally unresearched, and very very dangerous. Notice that is has been pulled down from the Australian website? Ever wondered why?
The AU list was developed by a newspaper - nothing more. And it never had any endorsement from any government authority in Australia.
Cheers,
George

As punishment for writing BS I vow to drink more Banrock Station wine - to boost Australia's wealth.
I first read a claim of your involvement at DegreeInfo, which just goes to show!

George Brown

01-18-2005, 08:19 AM

Mmm, I am sure I corrected whatever was posted there. Nonetheless, I am not phased, just wanted to set the record straight. Now, I have told you before Neil, go the Wirra Wirra - its only $18.50 a bottle now - beats the Banrock any day.

Cheers,

George

01-18-2005, 12:24 PM

I don't. How is an HR person supposed know the educational quality of an institution that grants a degree, and gives a person credits on a transcript that the person did not earn? Some of these schools have very professional looking sheepskin and very professional looking transcripts, yet much of what is on them is simply BS. Some of these schools will allow people to pay extra for honors, or allow you to chose what is on a transcript. Some of these schools give credit for experience that has not been assessed ot verified, and it is simply given because you filled out an application or sent in a resume. This is corupt any way that you look at it, and is meant to deceive. But, I guess if the HR person does not catch it then it is just Oke Dokee then, and these schools with such practices are totally in there right. I think that is bunk. These schools are blurring the line, and demeaning the value of what an academic achievement is.

Sorry, but this is way off.

I can find out exactly what Hamilton is with Google and thirty seconds at my disposal. If you're saying an HR person isn't capable of doing that then frankly they are not capable of their job. It is the responsibility of HR to determine whether a given candidate is qualified for a given post. If you and I can be bothered to find out about Hamilton (and I'm guessing neither of us works in HR) how much more would you expect a professional recruiter to care about it? My view; a whole lot more.

Again, if you claim that degrees represent absolute values, try having a look at www.tui.edu (RA) and tell me how their doctoral program compares to one in a similar field at Harvard.

And some fun from outside the US to close. Here are three degrees, all Masters of Arts, from historic and venerable universities in the UK. Tell me, are they all the same in their requirements?

MA University of London
MA University of Edinburgh
MA University of Oxford

01-18-2005, 12:32 PM

I ascribe to Bear's assertion that all schools sit on a continuum of legitimacy. At either ends they are black and white, and these can be easily categorised. The middle ground is the dangerous and impossible area IMHO. The 'substandard' etc categories just do not work, and I think this has been mirrored on the ODA site as it has chopped and changed in orderd to strive for some all encapsulating criteria. Unfortunately, I do not think it exists.

Cheers,

George

That's not too far from my view on the matter. Ultimately, degrees represent a particular status in a particular institution, and are given meaning by that institution that may be the same or different to that in other institutions, not just in the US, but worldwide.

The onus is then on employers and others to determine what sort of degree will meet their needs and what sort won't. I would argue that all degrees exist on a scale of value. My hypothetical employee's KWU MBA may not qualify him for a salary raise in the way an accredited degree would, for example. But I wouldn't deny him the right to use and mention the degree, nor rule out the possibility of giving him some credit (though less than an accredited degree) for its completion as a professional enhancement.

The ODA approach of attempting to criminalize graduates is the worst sort of sensationalist nonsense. People have free choice in matters of education - just as the hirer has free choice on matters of acceptance.

01-18-2005, 01:33 PM

Now if it is George's opinion is that the Au list is unresearched by the reporter then how in the world could it be so much better than the ODA's list?

The statement that the list is unresearched appears to be belied by the fact that some with knowledge of the matter consider it to be fair and reasonable. What do we have then - Patrick Lawnham, idiot savant? Or is his conclusion merely different from the ODA cheerleaders? He's written plenty else on the subject, and I'd say he knows a good deal about it (not that I necessarily agree with him).

It seems to me that the Au list is not produced with an agenda against legitimate unaccredited schools. Oregon ODA supporters know that this category is that which threatens the revenues of RA or NA DL programs the most, because it constitutes a viable alternative for some, and so it is the one constantly pushed into the firing line.

Jay2

01-18-2005, 03:21 PM

Opinions are a dime a dozen and that is all that is given by any list of schools. The ODA list was the opinions of Contreras aided by the opinions of others ( those having his views) and never had any basis in research or provable fact or evidence. It was put forth by those with an agenda as being some level of provable evidence, something to refer to. As has been proven ODA opinions will not hold up to legal challenge, therefore it is of no value as proof, just as opinion. And of what value is that? nothing more than additional talk.

plcscott

01-18-2005, 05:38 PM

The statement that the list is unresearched appears to be belied by the fact that some with knowledge of the matter consider it to be fair and reasonable. What do we have then - Patrick Lawnham, idiot savant? Or is his conclusion merely different from the ODA cheerleaders? He's written plenty else on the subject, and I'd say he knows a good deal about it (not that I necessarily agree with him).

It seems to me that the Au list is not produced with an agenda against legitimate unaccredited schools. Oregon ODA supporters know that this category is that which threatens the revenues of RA or NA DL programs the most, because it constitutes a viable alternative for some, and so it is the one constantly pushed into the firing line.

Earlier statements were made that the Au list is a lot better than the ODA list because it was researched, and now that we find out that IF any research was done, it was done by a reporter. Yet, this reporter still produced this list (without research) but with no agenda, and the ODA, it's supporters, and all the RA, NA, programs are aligned with an agenda to protect the revenues of the accredited schools and are against the legitimate unaccredited schools?

So, everyone that does not think diploma mills or substandard schools should just be able to do anything they want has an agenda, but those that think any these schools should be able to do anything they want without any oversight does not?

So legitimate unaccredited = any school that does not just sell degrees?

School A = resume and an essay for a BA degree in a few weeks.
School B = 4 open book exams and an paper for a BA degree in a few months.
School C = 40 courses and 4 years worth of for a BA degree.

These are all completely legitimate because they just do not sell degrees?

You know I am completely against the ODA labeling schools, but I think it is absurd to defend all of these schools that pretend to be a university.

Robert J.

01-18-2005, 06:05 PM

Personally if there is an agenda at the ODA, I think it's more about "saving face" at this point in time. I think the argument that the ODA is "RA or No Way" is really silly. If it was that simple, there would be no ODA at all. It would be simply, well, RA or No Way and case closed for every school. But the fact there are approved programs such as SCUPs Psyh D. and a process to get off the list, perhaps I'm looking at things half full but I see the ODA as the opposite of RA or No way it's actually the one state where an unaccredited school can get distinct government level approval where the school is outside of it's home state. Think about it, if I lived in Oregon with a KWU degree I sure would look over my shoulder a lot less now than if I lived in CA with a KWU degree. I still have fundamental Rights issues with the legislation not the ODA, I do not like the fact it has no typical American Due Process and I also still don't like hearing about the BJU case and this AFU article as that does lead to bias and speculation but I still need something more than that to lose faith in it and them 100%. George might be right, this might be just an impossible task with impossible legislation and perhaps in it's finality the ODA and it's legislation might have to be completely re-worked, up to and including it's personnel.

plcscott

01-18-2005, 06:42 PM

Sorry, but this is way off.

I can find out exactly what Hamilton is with Google and thirty seconds at my disposal. If you're saying an HR person isn't capable of doing that then frankly they are not capable of their job. It is the responsibility of HR to determine whether a given candidate is qualified for a given post. If you and I can be bothered to find out about Hamilton (and I'm guessing neither of us works in HR) how much more would you expect a professional recruiter to care about it? My view; a whole lot more.

What is Hamilton? Yes, you may find out about it, but you have been around these message boards and know a lot about it and schools like it. I wonder how many HR people may get fooled by schools with websites that would make you think they are just as legitimate as a UoP or Capella. If you look at many of their websites, you would think that they are not any different and have the exact same requirements. Before I started reading these message boards I had never heard the term diploma mill, degree mill, and did not know much at all how schools are accredited.

As usual the responsibility is passed on to the one that does not catch it, rather than the ones that are creating the deception. Is it the police officers fault because he does not catch a burglar? I do all the hiring and firing in my business, so I guess you could say that I am HR. My business is a different in that I care much more about skills, experience, and what someone can do for me than about a degree, but I understand why people are against these bad schools because they are demeaning legitimate degrees, and confusing the entire purpose of the academic achievement. If a person claims to be a master electrician then he or she should have to meet the same requirements for that certification as the next person. If one is required to first be a journeyman electrician and work under a master electrician for 4 years and then pass the 6 hour exam, but the next with very little experience is only required to read a book and pass a 20 question open book exam then the two didn't meet the same requirements. If the latter claims to be a masters electrician then he is deceiving whomever he makes that claim to. Two master electricians may not be equal because one may have a more diverse background, or more experience before the certification was achieved, but each still met the minimum requirements.

Rather than digging in on a certain side and attacking the messenger we should all try to listen more and be open minded. I think that is what so turned me off in the past, but after I took the time to mull over what I was reading rather than the way it written I came to understand why some of these schools are so bad. I am not saying all unaccredited schools are bad, I am saying the ones that do not adhere to normal standards are because they are blurring the level of achievement.

Nothing is going to come from saying that you are wrong, you are a fraud, you are a liar, or from you have an agenda, you are part of a conspiracy, you are part of some gang that only believe a certain way. With good healthy open-minded discussions and debate, maybe a good solution will come to fruition. I think that bashing any kind of oversight or restrictions on one side, or bashing all nontraditional unaccredited institutions on the other is nothing more than being partisan.

RA_Ph.D.

01-18-2005, 08:33 PM

"And some fun from outside the US to close. Here are three degrees, all Masters of Arts, from historic and venerable universities in the UK. Tell me, are they all the same in their requirements?

MA University of London
MA University of Edinburgh
MA University of Oxford
__________________
Moderator
Degreeboard.com, Inc.
A Delaware Company "

Wonderful example of the variance of degree meanings and values.

I have a friend, a holder of a University of Cambridge Ph.D., who was made an M.A. of Oxford by "incorporation" when he became a fellow of an Oxford college. He, of course, did no further work for that degree, but simply applied for it under the correct statute of the University rules. I'll bet some U.S. RA univertsities would give him credit for an earned MA (30 hours) if wanted to enter a grad program--ha, ha. I got a "life experience" doctorate on the basis of an earned Ph.D. and professional experience. I frankly don't see much difference in the process of degree granting by "incorporation" and my "life experience" award, except, of course, the very different sources of the awards--his being Oxford, mine, Bridgewater. Of course, if Oxford awards no-work degrees that are merely respresent a voting status within the University, it's legit. If a so-called mill (=Bridgewater according to ODA) grants even a qualified individual such a degree, it's fraud---right ?

01-18-2005, 08:41 PM

Is it the police officers fault because he does not catch a burglar?

And if he fails to catch him, does that justify a group of civilians forming a lynch mob?

Either you have a free, democratic society or you land up ceding your liberties to the state one by one, and that process will go well beyond education.

I still think your understanding of what an academic degree is to be at major odds with the reality, let alone the history, of academic awards. I've already given one example of how that is so in the UK system, and I'm about to give another.

01-18-2005, 08:53 PM

Wonderful example of the variance of degree meanings and values.

I have a friend, a holder of a University of Cambridge Ph.D., who was made an M.A. of Oxford by "incorporation" when he became a fellow of an Oxford college. He, of course, did no further work for that degree, but simply applied for it under the correct statute of the University rules. I'll bet some U.S. RA univertsities would give him credit for an earned MA (30 hours) if wanted to enter a grad program--ha, ha. I got a "life experience" doctorate on the basis of an earned Ph.D. and professional experience. I frankly don't see much difference in the process of degree granting by "incorporation" and my "life experience" award, except, of course, the very different sources of the awards--his being Oxford, mine, Bridgewater. Of course, if Oxford awards no-work degrees that are merely respresent a voting status within the University, it's legit. If a so-called mill (=Bridgewater according to ODA) grants even a qualified individual such a degree, it's fraud---right ?

And Trinity College Dublin would have done the same for your Oxford friend. Sshhh...don't tell anyone, but HARVARD does this automatic MA for faculty thing too...at one stage many universities did.

I like these little puzzlers about UK degree equivalence. Here's another couple:

Masters of Philosophy

MPhil University of London - 2 year research degree one step below a PhD; equivalent to an MLitt at Oxford and Cambridge
MPhil University of Cambridge - 1 year taught degree - except if you do Theology, when it becomes a 2 year taught degree
MPhil University of Oxford - 2 year taught degree

Bachelors of Divinity

BD University of London (and elsewhere) - 3 year first degree
BD University of Oxford - postgraduate research degree
BD University of Cambridge - postgraduate research degree now higher in standard than a PhD

But guess how one got a Cambridge BD last century? Have a look at http://www.bopcris.ac.uk/bopall/ref6249.html

...the degree of Bachelor of Divinity, achieved by keeping one's name on the boards of some college for ten years, and residing during three terms in the last two years, has been abolished.

Well, I say! Degrees for no work! Does that make Cambridge a degree mill?

I could go on, but I think I've made my point.

plcscott

01-18-2005, 09:44 PM

And if he fails to catch him, does that justify a group of civilians forming a lynch mob?

Ah come on. What lynch mob?

Just because an HR person does not find out that a degree from one of these schools is not equivalent to degrees from most all legitimate schools then you want to put the blame on the HR person. What about the deceptive schools that are deficient in the normal standards, and their consumers? Are they ever to blame for trying to pass something off as somthing that it is not?

Either you have a free, democratic society or you land up ceding your liberties to the state one by one, and that process will go well beyond education.

I am all for freedom and creativity, but I am also for normative parameters. I might think the drinking age should be 18, but you might think 21, and someone else may think 16, but without a set standard then who is to say that a 12 year old can't legally get drunk or even drive a car for that matter.

If there is no set standard then how do you know at what point something has meaning if everyone is just freely doing everything they want. Where would we be without some measurable comparison? What about speed limits, SAT scores, licenses, batting averages, cleanliness of restaurants, etc? Should we only have minimum standards in most other areas other than degree granting institutions?

I still think your understanding of what an academic degree is to be at major odds with the reality, let alone the history, of academic awards. I've already given one example of how that is so in the UK system, and I'm about to give another.

If my understanding of what a degree is, is at odds with reality and history then what is your understanding of what an academic degree is? I think a degree is a level of academic achievement which is given for meeting certain standards and competencies. What say you?

01-18-2005, 11:35 PM

If my understanding of what a degree is, is at odds with reality and history then what is your understanding of what an academic degree is? I think a degree is a level of academic achievement which is given for meeting certain standards and competencies. What say you?

A degree - of any sort - is a grant of status within an academic institution. The institution may determine that you can achieve the degree through meeting certain standards and competencies - though not necessarily the same as apply elsewhere - or it may grant the degree by incorporation from elsewhere (Oxford, Cambridge, Dublin) - or because you have survived for three years after taking a bachelor's degree with no further work (Oxford, Cambridge, formerly Durham, Dublin etc) - or it may grant the degree without any academic work at all because you have joined the faculty without being a graduate of that school (Oxford, Cambridge, most other UK schools until the earlyish 20th century, Harvard and some other Ivy League US schools) - or it may grant the degree as an honorary award in return for a large donation or some service to the university or simply being famous (most anywhere), regardless of whether you even graduated high school. Universities are funny places.

Go to UNISA and take a PhD with a research dissertation only. Go to Stanford and most US RA schools and do a whole heap of coursework as well as your dissertation. Go to CCU and do your DBA without a dissertation at all. Come out of all of those programs called Doctor. And every school I've named so far is regarded as the equivalent of US RA or NA.

Without the variety of higher education provision I've described, we'd have a poorer world. And with that, laydeesandgennlemen, I rest my case.