Talk:List of unaccredited institutions of higher learning

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

This article was nominated for deletion on 30 November 2005. The result of the discussion was keep. An archived record of this discussion can be found here.

Contents

[edit] 2004-5

Couldn't we put this page at List of unaccredited educational institutions? The new title is a bit too long, I feel. Proteus (Talk) 19:59, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Could countries be included - Ashford and Preston could be the places in the UK. 212.85.6.26 18:00, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)

From the article:

"Some schools have initiated law suits against Oregon for unconstitutional bias against some of these schools."

Which ones? On what legal basis? -- The Anome 00:22, Oct 29, 2004 (UTC)

I posted some added info, but it keeps getting vandalised.(erased)

  • It's not being vandlized. A good deal of the information you added bore a slanted point of view, and unencyclopedic language. I simply clarified some of the point of view statements. – ClockworkSoul 07:26, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I beg to differ, I think the original view is slanted, my explanation expands on the content, your's does not. As far as being "unencyclopedic" at least my spelling of vandalised is correct, but I am sure you will change that a.s.a.p. Using words like "some" and "maÿ" as in the original post is open ended and throws speculation and suspicion on the entire list. One reason why I think lists such as these are flawed. If you are going to call a school a diploma mill at least make reference to specific schools and case law.

  • Yikes - can't a guy make one typo? Geez... Read below, please. – ClockworkSoul 06:36, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] POV

Please stop readding adding POV statements to this article. Also, statements such as the following are weasel terms, and should be attributed to exact sources by citing your own sources.

  • "It has been reported that certain State laws have been found in violation of constitutional law." &ndash Which laws in which states? Unconstitutional in what manner?
  • "Some schools have initiated law suits against Oregon for unconstitutional bias against some of these schools." – Which schools? What kind of bias?
  • "Recently in New Zealand a school that was listed on a list such as the one below..." – How recently, exactly? Which school? What list?

Thanks for understanding where I'm coming from. – ClockworkSoul 22:50, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

      • —

I hear you Clock, the fact is that many articles have the "it has been reported" explanation, mostly when used to derail certain schools. Oregon (the ODA) was found in breach of constitutional law. This has been widely reported. Kennedy Western University sued them. Another French school (Robert Sorbon) also sued them. They had a biff with Jones University too if I recall.

Both Michigan and Oregon have changed the way they have to list unaccredited or foreign schools. Alan Contreras of the ODA, himself a JD, was apparently required to undergo training on defamation laws. The NZ case is also well known, it was against The Australian newspaper, that article was flawed and proved to be defamatory in nature. I could go on....

Thanks for understanding where I'm coming from - Jack Harvard

  • Hi, Jack Harvard. This is all good stuff, why not cite these references in the article? Without them, the text you keep adding into the article body simply looks like "unsubstantiated point-of-view". All I want is for it to be presented in format of an encyclopedia, not that of an argumentative essay. – ClockworkSoul 14:49, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

~ Hi Clockwork, I will gladly expand. I too believe in a balanced article, reflecting both sides with merit. Unfortunately some folks here with agendas for whatever reason keep erasing the expanded article. They target certain schools, mostly African and they seem hellbent on only the negative. Most informed people know that an unaccredited or foreign accredited degree, in some rare cases, is not always accepted in academia, but the fact is that in the business arena remarkably many are well received.

Thereby rebuffing the notion that ALL such degrees are unacceptable. Some of these schools do a good job of teaching students something, others do not. Some California state approved schools allow students in CA to sit for licencing exams in various professions. Often these schools get included in these types of lists. That is why I dislike the likes of ODA etc.

First, to address the contributor coming in from "comindico.com.au": I'm looking forward to your contributions. Sincere and open-minded debate is the best way to reach neutral groud.
Second, to address the troll coming in from 69.227.167.208 (adsl-69-227-167-208.dsl.irvnca.pacbell.net): modifying other authors statements and adding invented schools like "Alan Contreras State University" to the list doesn't do much to help us here... please stop. – ClockworkSoul 17:46, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

×Hi Clock, sorry for the earlier jibe at your typo...a bit trigger happy I suppose. I still see that my expanded version keeps being erased. - Jack Harvard.

[edit] Failed AFD

This article's AFD debate gained consensus to keep. Johnleemk | Talk 13:10, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Oxford Graduate School

I checked the UNESCO database, this institution is not listed. See the list inclusion criteria: "These institutions may have been listed on publicly available lists of unaccredited institutions, or are absent from the UNESCO list of world universities". Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 21:51, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Not that I have a dog in this fight, but go to the US Dept of Education Office of Postsecondary Education website, enter "Oxford" in the search window, and read the result: they're accredited by the Transnational Association of Christian Colleges and Schools, Accreditation Commission. Note that -- ironically enough -- A.J.A., who added Oxford Graduate School, had made the previous edit, removing Bob Jones University from the list on the grounds that they're accredited by the Transnational Association of Christian Colleges and Schools, Accreditation Commission. So both BJU or OGS belong on this list or neither are, depending on whether you think TRACS doesn't count or does count. Consistency and all that.

P.S.: For some reason, the OPE entry calls the place "Oxford Gradutate School" -- which is either a typo or I just learned a new word. --Calton | Talk 00:40, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

OK, so now explain why TRACS is not listed in the article as an appropriate accreditation body, and why the UNESCO list (which is the stated authority for inclusion) does not include this college? I'm mostly concerned because of (a) the number of bogus accreditation bodies out there and (b) the potential for confusion of the clueless by the name "Oxford"; my priest has a degree in theology from the real Oxford :-) - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 14:12, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
OK, so now explain why TRACS is not listed in the article as an appropriate accreditation body Don't be thick: NO accreditation body at all is listed in the article.
And UNESCO's list is not THE stated authority for inclusion, nor is it the ONLY reliable source for accreditation information: note that the US Department of Education's Council on Higher Education Accreditation search page is linked to the article. Or are you arguing that United States Department of Education is unable to tell the authentic from the bogus accreditation bodies? --Calton | Talk 14:36, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
WPA:NPA, if you don't mind. I am simply trying to understand the morass of claimed accreditation bodies, due to a certain POV-pusher's habit of using weasel phrases such as "regionally accredited" to hide unaccredited institutions. As you will no doubt be aware, this is considered important given the number of bogus "colleges" and "universities" out there.
I hadn't thought that candidacy should count, but per TRACS' description it should. So TRACS counts and candidacy counts. A.J.A. 18:20, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of unlicensed accreditation associations of higher learning


I have created a companion article, List of recognized accreditation associations of higher learning. A.J.A. 01:48, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sections?

One cause of conflict at present seems to be the unaccredited religious institutions. Is there any merit in putting these in a separate section, since they claim that they have particular reasons for not seeking accreditation? They are not, I would venture to suggest, "diploma mills" as such, although they are clearly a kind of academic walled garden, with courses often taught by graduates of those courses, and admission criteria based uncritical agreement with a certain doctrinal viewpoint. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 10:04, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

No separate section. Just because it's a religious group it can't be a mill? Or just because it isn't religious it is a diploma mill? Simply put, is not possible to draw the line, at least according to the experts.

Fraudulent educational institutions continue to proliferate. These diploma mills survive by operating in states with lax law governing schools, such as California, Utah, Hawaii and Louisiana. They assume identities of well-known schools or as "religious" organizations. Because of constitutional safeguards in the United States guarantee separation of church and state, most states have been reluctant to pass any laws restricting the activities of churches, including their right to grant degrees. John Bear has asked, "What about a school that requires a five page dissertation before awarding the Doctorate. Nobody seems to want the government stepping in to evaluate doctoral dissertations before permitting schools to grant degrees."[1]

It will create more headaches and become confusing. For example, Patriot University sounds like a non-religious school, but has now become Patrtiot Bible University. Let's leave religion out of this and judgement out as well. This page is just a list and shouldn't classify schools. Creating a list would invite squabbling.
As for your comment, they claim that they have particular reasons for not seeking accreditation, this is not true. Accreditation is for all schools. For example University of Notre Dame is Catholic and accredited, Texas Methodist is accredited, Boston College is catholic and accredited, Dallas Theological Seminary is accredited, Bob Jones University is accredited. That line about accreditation isn't true. Rather it is a smoke screen as noted in the quote above. There is a offically recognized theological accreditation group (Transnational Association of Christian Colleges and Schools) that caters to religious schools. The list in alphabetical order is a good resource. The list should stay as is.

See: Religious and accreditation: List of recognized accreditation associations of higher learning Arbustoo 05:01, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] TEDS, Luther Rice

Trinity Evangelical Divinity School is accredited [2].

Unless Luther Rice College is a different entity from Luther Rice College and Seminary, they are too. [3] [4].

I don't know why a school like TEDS or DTS would even be suspected, let alone listed when they were easily found to be accredited. A.J.A. 17:40, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Buxton University

In addition to the link already in the article: [5] [6] [7] [8].

There shouldn't be any dispute whether this is a mill. A.J.A. 19:57, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Some others...

List of independent Baptist colleges is up for deletion, as is Independent Baptist College. I strongly suspect that several of those listed will turn out to be unaccredited, the whole subject looks to me like Gastroturfing. What are the accreditation details for Providence Baptist College? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by JzG (talk • contribs) 05:47, February 6, 2006.

I just went through and added all the unaccredited ones. Providence Baptist College didn't show up on either CHEA or the DoE search, and their site didn't have any claims to accreditation I could see. I was surprised Hyles-Anderson wasn't already on the list. A.J.A. 20:49, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bob Jones University

Is there a reason that Bob Jones University isn't listed? Dan, the CowMan 08:27, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

It's borderline: TRACS says they meet basic standards but aren't eligible for full accreditation. It depends on where you draw the lines, I guess. --Calton | Talk 08:36, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
By the criteria of the article, we draw the line at whether they are accredited. There is no reason Bob Jones should not be included with a note to the effect that TRACS say they meet standards, but they meet the criteria for inclusion, to my mind. Just zis Guy you know? 10:50, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
CHEA makes no distinction between candidacy and full accreditation [9], and neither does the DoE. TRACS lists them separately, but the main difference seems to be whether they've maintained their standards for the five year test period. It's probably a safe bet BJU will.
If it is included, I would argue for a separate category of schools that are verified candidates for accreditation, which is a different situation from schools that can't or won't go through the process. A.J.A. 23:45, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
No, when it comes to accreditation there is no borderline grey between black and white. Candidacy for accreditation is not accreditation any more than 1) prenuptual engagement is marriage or 2) applying for a job is a job offer or 3) candidacy for President of the USA before election day is actually being the President of the USA. It is actually very simple: A is A; not yet A is not A. Candidacy is merely a term for "applied for but not yet decided at all". I would be interested in seeing references to conclusive evidence to the contrary from accrediting organizations appended below. Conversely, an institution that is pursuing a not-yet-completed attempt at accreditation should be designated as such, but still as an unaccredited institution that is attempting to pursue a not-yet-decided accreditation judgement. An accreditation judgement that has been fully adjudicated as a denial of accreditation is unaccredited and a noncandidate. —Optikos 00:37, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
Hmmm. I can see some merit in genuine and credible candidate schools being listed separately, or at least having some note to that effect. If an accrediting body says that a school meets the required standards and will be accredited if it continues to meet these stan dards for a specified period, that does seem to me to be valid informaiton to include, in all fairness. Just zis Guy you know? 22:15, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

BJU is a member of, and candidate for accreditation by the Transnational Association of Christian Colleges and Schools, an accrediting organization recognized by the Department of Education and the Council for Higher Education Accreditation. As soon as BJU was provisionally accredited, it went on all the federal lists as if it had already received full recognition by TRACS. In other words, the degree of a BJU graduate is now validated for any sort of federal employment. In the world of accreditation, that's where the rubber meets the road. --John Foxe 18:21, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

BJU was granted accreditation by TRACS as of November 8, 2006 [10]

[edit] Non-institutions of higher learning

Holy Trinity Seminary in Irving, Texas is incorrectly listed as an institution of higher learning. Holy Trinity Seminary is not itself an institution of higher learning (accredited or not).

  • what Holy Trinity Seminary is—Holy Trinity Seminary is an academic residence affiliated with the (accredited) University of Dallas. Holy Trinity Seminary does not itself teach academic classes nor does it grant degrees. All seminarians at Holy Trinity Seminary are required to attend classes at University of Dallas and graduate with a degree in Philosophy and Letters from University of Dallas. Of course Holy Trinity Seminary is not accredited, nor should it be, nor would anyone who understands the facts expect it to be. As a residence affiliated with a college, a sorority-house chapter at a college would be expected to neither seek nor attain accreditation as an institution of higher education. Nor would a fraternity-house chapter.
  • secular academic residences—Indeed, let's compare the Holy Trinity Seminary academic residence to their direct secular analogue. At Indiana University Bloomington, its humongous College of Arts of Sciences maintains a few academic residences separate from the general residence halls,[11], such as Collins Living-Learning Center and Global Village Living Learning Center, where the resident student is expected to pursue certain academic goals outside of the classroom. These academic residences at Indiana University are not accredited by the North Central Association, but do not appear on this unaccredited list. Nor should they. Unless we list Collins Living-Learning Center and Global Village Living Learning Center academic residences at Indiana University Bloomington on this list (and we should not), then the Holy Trinity Seminary academic residence of University of Dallas should not appear on this list either.
  • removal of Holy Trinity Seminary from this list—Because of the lack of research that went into incorrectly listing Holy Trinity Seminary on this list, I am removing Holy Trinity Seminary from this list. Let this be a lesson learned for all editors of this list in not performing a minimally acceptable level of research to discern fact from assumption. I will assume that this is a simple mistake and not an intended denominational insult (although the now-rewritten former content of the Holy Trinity Seminary article leads me to suspect that insult was intended by some non-Catholic). —Optikos 18:55, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
On further thought, you are correct. As long as the article makes clear (as it does) that the seminary does not award degrees or certs. it doesn't need to be listed. Arbusto 07:52, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Religious schools and accreditation (1 March, 2006)

This from Pquentinj (talk • contribs):

I am amazed at how slanted this article is. I have posted some clarifications that at least allow for the fact that some colleges that are not accredited offer good academics, and have degrees specifically geared to religious vocations. They seem to be deleted, but for the sake of clarity and evenhandedness, it seems that these comments, or some similar, should be allowed to stay. Quentin

The special pleading re schools supposedly opting out for religious or principled reasons was rejected when I added it, and I see that was correct. I have reverted it for the same reason: TRACS exists to accredit these schools, and those which meet the standards seem not to have ethical issues with TRACS, since this is a Christian group. Just zis Guy you know? 18:50, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

It would be really good if just occasionally we came across a "conservative" Christian whose primary goal on Wikipedia was not to whitewash unaccredited schools, paint splinter movements as the sole true disciples of Christ, and pretend that the only reason they are not acredited is that they don't believe in it, honest, and the fact that this makes them ineligible for all sorts of aid is really a good thing because they don't want it. Why can't they give up Gastroturfing for Lent? Just zis Guy you know? 19:12, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
what I find interesting is the absolute certainty of your ignorance. While TRACS serves some Christian schools, it is not an automatic asumption that schools who wish not to be accredited are, therefore by definition, diploma mills. I undrstood that Wikipedia existed to provide information, not serve as the soapbox of an editor with a gripe. Now, clearly you have the power to have written what you allow, however, please give up the pretense, if ever there was one, that you are impartial. I do not see how my edits constitute a "whitewash," while your's clearly constiture a "blackballing." Quentin
Nobody says they are. But they are not accredited, which is what matters. Some of them undoubtedly are diploma mills, and fundamentalist Christian schools are a kind of walled garden, issuing degress to themselves and each other which have no relevance or recognition outside their own closed circle. To pretend otherwise is to deny the obvious. Just zis Guy you know? 08:21, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
This article lists unaccredited institutions of higher learning, i.e. institutions that are not accredited by a recognized governmental or international accreditation body. That is all perfectly verifiable and there is nothing wrong with listing them in such an article. The problem with claiming that some of them nonetheless do have good academic standards is problematic, however, as there is no independent body verifying this. Unless such proof is forthcoming I have to side with JzG and feel that all such claims to (unverified) good academic standards should not be mentioned in this article. It can be mentioned that some of them claim to nonetheless have good academic standards, but I cannot see how that can be stated as a fact if it is unverified. Elf-friend 08:53, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
It's more than that: there is special pleading here - the schools claim that they are not accredited because they don't believe in accreditation for one reason or another. The cited reasons do not stand up to close scrutiny, since there is nothing barring Christian schools from having their Christian curriculum accredited by a Christian accreditaiton body. Ever seen the Blues Brothers? It always reminds me of Jake's excuses for not turning up to the wedding. Just zis Guy you know? 12:43, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
Every school has reasons for not having accreditation. From not "wanting it" for various reasons to "applying" for it to obtaining a "license" (which is not accreditation). The schools should stand on their own merits and academics. Thus, no blanket excuse for lacking accreditation should be offered; not on this page or any wikipedia page. Some really good schools are bible colleges and some are diploma mills. A blanket excuse would combine the two, which isn't fair to the good schools. Arbusto 07:50, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A couple of additions?

Somebody has just spammed Wikipedia with links to Regent International University. See for instance the err... generous offer of "honorary degrees" here The website is actually quite comical:

"Prestige is guaranteed. Just check into a hotel, restaurant, conference etc... as "John Doe" and as "Dr. John Doe". The way you'll be treated is tremendously different! Your life as a Doctor will change dramatically. It will get easier, you will receive the amount of respect a Doctor deserves in his or her professional and personal life. The advantages are countless. Think about it for a moment."

I guess this may be another one of those fly-by-night web operations connected to other similar diploma mills, but I haven't investigated the issue.

I'm also suspicious about American Global University School of Medicine, posted the other day. It looks very much like a diploma mill (name, exotic location yet catering towards American students, and with a mail address in Ohio). Tupsharru 11:43, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion at Talk:University of the Nations & possibilityof a template

The discussion at Talk:University of the Nations is focusing on the question of unaccredited bodies (also the question of degree mills was mentioned) - the development ofa template has been mentioned. Paul foord

Started at Template:Unaccredited Just zis Guy you know? 10:58, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tennessee Temple Theological Seminary

There is no institution named "Tennessee Temple Theological Seminary." The actual name of the school in reference is Temple Baptist Seminary, not to be confused with Temple Baptist College. Also, Temple Baptist Seminary is recognized by TRACS, CHEA, and the Tennessee Higher Education Commission, therefore it is not unaccredited. rlee1185 04:27, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

There are at least a few people claiming to have gone there [12] [13]. It appears to be in Chattanooga, and might be the same as Tennessee Temple University, which is accredited by TRACS [14] and in that city.
Note: I did not find a Temple Baptist Seminary listed in the CHEA database, nor in the list of accredited or candidate schools at the TRACS site.
Oops? A.J.A. 15:01, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
No oops here. Temple Baptist Seminary is considered part of Tennessee Temple University by TRACS. It is not called Tennessee Temple Theological Seminary. Until recently, only TBS was considered accredited. TTU has recently affirmed/reaffirmed accreditation with TRACS, and, since both are on the same campus under the same administration, they are both accredited. You can check out TBS, TTU, and TRACS personally if you want to confirm, or I can try to get you more detailed information if you are interested enough.rlee1185 22:25, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
I'm hardly surprised. TRACS will accredit anybody. Just zis Guy you know? 22:29, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
I've just checked some more and you're right. A.J.A. 22:31, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
Yes, rlee1185 is right. Thanks for posting the explanation on the talk. Arbusto 02:38, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
According to Jerry Falwell's official biography[15] he was awarded a Doctor of Divinity from Tennessee Temple Theological Seminary. Thus, I am adding to the list. C56C 20:30, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Apparently the schools are the same, but the names have changed over the years. --Ezratrumpet 16:33, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] CPU

This isn't the "unaccredited institutions project", but let me treat it like that for now. Columbia Pacific University was a well-known unaccredited, distance learning institution from 1978 to until after 2000, when it was shut down by state authorities for not meeting their minimal licensing requirements. Defenders of the school have created a couple of websites, one of which has extensive (but selective) online documents. Those same defenders wrote most of the article here. I've been hoping for a long time that someone else would do the work of improving the NPOV, verifiability, and NOR condition of the article, but my procrastination hasn't born fruit. I have made a few edits over the last year, but much more is needed. However in the last week the defenders have appeared. This long discussion [16] following a short blog undoubtedly covers many of the same issues, and has at least two of the same participants. If anyone is interested in this field and would like another article to work on, may I recommend Columbia Pacific University? Cheers, -Will Beback 07:20, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Often vandalized unaccredited pages

For those willing to watch out for vandalism, this is a list of the most commonly vandalized webpages. Usually the vandals removed information about the schools lacking accreditation. Arbusto 18:48, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] See also

[edit] Vision International University

I just removed Vision International University from the list as it would seem that the institution is accredited by multiple agencies, including Australia's VETAB (Vocational Education and Training Accrediting Board; similiar to the UK's BTEC), and the California Bureau for Private Postsecondary and Vocational Education [17]. Their disclosure policy on accreditation seems pretty straightforward and legitimate too [18].

Feel free to revert if there is recent to feel that I might have made a mistake. Thanks. - Bob K | Talk 08:15, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

It belongs on the list. The school is in Ramona, CA and the California Bureau is not an accreditor and the BTEC story doesn't check out. Even if it did a former British accreditor means nothing to a California school. CaliEd 04:20, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
Okay, I probably am not very familiar with how the POV about accreditation is. VETAB's accreditation can be viewed here, albeit under a different trade name and VETAB is considered an accreditation agency by the Australian government, so arguably it is accredited at least in Australia and recognised as an exempt postsecondary institution by the state of CA. Just thought I'd make the record straight but I'll stick to the consensus. You gotta admit though that this institution probably has more legit credentials than many of the rest listed here. - Bob K | Talk 15:50, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
The Vision International University articles states its a school in California and it does not have accreditation in the US. The article notes it has accreditation in Australia, but for its California university (where it was founded) Australian accreditation is not authorized by Council on Higher Education Accreditation.
If there is any question about this; they are missing from the two databases for accredited schools: CHEA Database for Accreditation and USDEDatabase for Accreditation. CaliEd 07:24, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
Just for clarification purposes, is the list here definitive for non CHEA accredited schools only? If so, perhaps it would be good to actually state so in this article otherwise it can get a bit misleading. Bob K | Talk 05:22, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
This is a US school that is not accredited according to the US Department of Education. CaliEd 19:46, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
Please refer to the talk page for Vision International University Talk:Vision_International_University for further clarification. Thank you. --Jreichard 19:06, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the clearing things up. Sorry if I seemed like a dog to a bone. Bob K | Talk 06:33, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Indira Gandhi National Open University

I have done some checking and turns out that this institution is a public university established by an Act of Parliament (Indira Gandhi National Open University Act, 1985 (Act 50 of 1985) - see exhaustive list of Indian central legislation here [19]).

Since this is the case, I don't think it is unjustified to remove this institution from this list. -- Bob K | Talk 04:34, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Regional vs. other accreditation

In the USA, there are 6 major accrediting agencies that are the "gold standard" of accreditation. Not all schools seek or even desire that accreditation for whatever reason. There are other accrediting agencies with different accrediting criteria that are also recognized as legitimate agencies by the U.S. Department of Education. The bottom line: in many states, if your state approves your application to open a university, you can open up - much of what comes after that is voluntary. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ezratrumpet (talk • contribs).

We need a source for "accreditation is voluntary." Secondly, many of the arguments you make as used by diploma mills, and thus, are misleading. There is a hierarchy for accreditation in that not all forms of accreditation are equal:
Vocational and religious accreditation groups have standards that are different from regional accreditors. For example, Trinity College (Florida) holds the Association for Biblical Higher Education.[20] Trinity applied for regional accreditation from Southern Association of Colleges and Schools, but was rejected in December 2005 In December 2005, SACS reviewed the college and rejected the application for accreditation because "Trinity College of Florida failed to provide information demonstrating its compliance with Core Requirement 2.5 (Institutional Effectiveness), Core Requirement 2.7.1 (Program Length), Core Requirement 2.7.2 (Program Content), Core Requirement 2.8 (Faculty), Comprehensive Standard 3.7.1 (Faculty), and Core Requirement 2.9 (Learning Resources and Services) of the Principles of Accreditation.[21]
Thirdly, your claim that state approve an "application to open a university, you can open up - much of what comes after that is voluntary" is uncited and incorrect. Fact is, "each state has its own school licensing laws."[22]
Please present any further changes on accreditation here for discussion. CaliEd 04:27, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. Perhaps there is a difference between "degrees from unaccredited schools" and "degrees from unlicensed schools." Your evidence from Washington State shows - accreditation is not necessary, if "authorization as a degree-granting institution by the higher education coordinating board" has been obtained. There is a significant difference, and only one of those conditions must be met to fulfill Washington State's legal requirements.

As for the source you requested, please read page 4 (page 8 from PDF view) from Principles of Accreditation: Foundation for Quality Enhancement, published by the Southern Association for Colleges and Schools (a PDF links to the publication). The first of the "fundamental characteristics of accreditations" reads, "Participation in the accreditation process is voluntary and is an earned and renewable status."

"Regional accreditation is a process of recognizing educational institutions for performance, integrity, and quality that entitles them to the confidence of the educational community and the public. In the United States this recognition is extended largely through nongovernmental, voluntary membership associations that establish accreditation criteria, evaluate institutions against that criteria, and approving institutions that meet the criteria." from the Northwest Commission on Colleges and Universities, Introduction to accreditation--Ezratrumpet 02:21, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I respectfully request that the article reflect the voluntary nature of accreditation. The article should also reflect that legitimate degree-awarding institutions must meet state licensing requirements in order to issue degrees. The sources I provided above should be sufficient.--Ezratrumpet 02:27, 10 August 2006 (UTC)


Unaccredited degrees are illegal in, at least, Washington, Oregon, North Dakota, and illegal for doctorates to be used in Indiana. CaliEd 21:51, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Washington State

Washington State: "State senators unanimously amended and approved a bill that would make giving or using a fake or otherwise unaccredited degree a class C felony, a crime of fraud that could warrant five years in prison and a $10,000 fine."[23] Here is the law: HB 2507 - 2005-06 :Prohibiting false or misleading college degrees.[24] (top of page three)

False academic credential means a document that provides evidence or demonstrates completion of an academic or professional course of instruction beyond the secondary level that results in the attainment of an academic certificate, degree, or rank, and that is not issued by a person or entity that: (i) Is an entity accredited by an agency recognized as such by rule of the higher education coordinating board or has the international equivalents of such accreditation; or (ii) is an entity authorized as a degree-granting institution by the higher education coordinating board; or (iii) is an entity exempt from the requirements of authorization as a degree-granting institution by the higher education coordinating board; or (iv) is an entity that has been granted a waiver by the higher education coordinating board from the requirements of authorization by the board. Such documents include, but are not limited to, academic certificates, degrees, coursework, degree credits, transcripts, or certification of completion of a degree.

[edit] Oregon, North Dakota, Indiana, New Jersey

On unaccredited degrees.

Is Oregon the only state that disallows use of unaccredited degrees? No. It is also illegal in North Dakota, see (www.state.nd.us/cte/post-secondary/programs/priv-post-inst/real-degree.pdf) and New Jersey, see (www.njtrainingsystems.org/) to use unaccredited degrees. It is illegal in Indiana, see (www.in.gov/cope/directory/) to use an unaccredited doctorate. See those states’ laws for details. Many other states are considering similar laws in order to prevent fraud.[25]

I'm not familiar with the details of the US situation, but there's at least two levels to the "legitimacy" question: legality per se, and what's generally accepted as a bona fide qualification from a "real school". The article would ideally make both aspects clear, even in jurisdictions where accreditation is in some sense legally voluntary (as isn't the case in the ones I'm directly familiar with). Alai 02:56, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Accreditation

To add to this:

Accreditation is voluntary, but degrees/credits from unaccredited schools have VERY limited if no use to students. No regionally or nationally accredited school will directly accept credits/degrees from an unaccredited school. They may be able to transfer in on prior learning assesment (check www.cael.org) or if the school is ACE (american council on education) approved, but the chances are slim.

Please don't misrepresent the point that unaccredited schools do not offer much more than personal enrichment to students (if they are legitimate, and not mills), and can not compare to legitimately accredited schools. If a student is seeking to utilize a degree to gain employment, they will have a VERY hard way to go if the degree is unaccredited. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Aic712 (talk • contribs).

[edit] Stamford International University

Stamford International University is not accredited. 1) Its webpage does not claim it is accredited.[26] 2) Missing from UNESCO's list for Malaysia, Thailand, and Singapore. 3) Malaysia's education department does not list it. If anyone has any evidence to the contrary then post it here. Arbusto 01:04, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] San Diego Christian College

Why is this college on the list? San Diego Christian College is an accredited college. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Unless good reason is given to maintain an accredited college on the list of unaccredited institutions, it should be deleted.Bagginator 04:50, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Good point. They are still accredited through at least March 2007 according to the article. I'll remove it from the list. --JJay 23:38, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
March 2007 means they don't even have accreditation for this school year. Thus, if they give degrees to students at the end of the Spring term those degrees are unaccredited-- at least according to their own school calendar.
Also if we are going to do this policy on what they are at the moment I guess schools that are canidates for accreditation aren't "accredited" and thus, should be returned to the list. We were being liberal about this, but I guess we can be hardnosed and add the canidates back in. Let me know how we should proceed then. Arbusto 02:22, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

March 2007 means they may not have accreditation for the 06-07 year. Emphasis on may. The above user was right to mention the "crystal ball" problem. We do not know what is going to happen. If and when their accreditation is withdrawn they should be added to the list. Until that point, they are accredited and can not be on the list. Regarding schools that are candidates for accreditation, I see no reason why they shouldn't be on the list. Once again, there is no guarantee they will be accredited. However, footnotes might be useful in these cases. --JJay 14:31, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Okay, so I'll be adding back in canidates for accreditation back in because they may (emphasis on may) not become accredited. Arbusto 18:28, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
Add schools that are not accredited at present. See the list introduction for an explanation of inclusion criteria. --JJay 23:40, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Add this citation to give context to the discussion: On June 23, 2006 Western Association of Schools and Colleges (WASC) reviewed San Diego Christian College and had a "series of concerns regarding the functioning of the college."[27] Given the concerns WASC decided "to terminate the accreditation of SDCC March 15, 2007 unless the college shows cause why this action should not take effect."[28] Arbusto 00:42, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Hence, as the participants here already knew, they are still accredited at present. Please update us on March 15, 2007. --JJay 02:27, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
I see no reason they can't be included on the list with a notation that the accreditor said there accreditation is terminated in March 2007. Arbusto 01:42, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
The reason is wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Until their accreditation is cancelled they are accredited. They can not be on the list before. --JJay 02:00, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
We don't need a crystal ball. The accreditor said that unless the school changes they have no accreditation to finish out the year. How often does that happen? According to WACS, only this "school."Arbusto 02:05, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
Barring a new announcement, they are accredited until at least March 15, 2007. If they lose their accreditation add them to the list. As long as they remain accredited they can not be added to the list. If that is unclear, please review inclusion criteria for the list. --JJay 03:41, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
The school isn't meeting the minimum standards required for accreditation, and thus should be on the list with the notation explaining the accreditor's public statements regarding their accreditation. --Arbusto 06:32, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
To make this simple, they are either accredited or they are not. When they are not accredited add them to the list. Until that point, should has no meaning. --JJay 22:22, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
You didn't address my above post. Rather you generally posted the same comment on October 6th that you did on Sept. 21st. Why not address my recommendation instead of sounding a like a broken record? --Arbusto 18:21, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
There is not much to address. This list is for unaccredited institutions. The school is accredited , as shown by their listing in the CHEA database [29]. Under those circumstances, the school can not be added to this list. As for sounding like a "broken record", it is unfortunate that you can not see the difference between accredited and unaccredited in this case and feel that it warrants repeated posts and endless discussion over a period of weeks. --JJay 18:56, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Candidacy

Rather than edit war, why not include candidate schools but mark them with an asterisk? A.J.A. 20:08, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

This canidate schools shouldn't be on the list, and schools that lost accreditation be on the list. With the example above, that school has 500 students and doesn't even have accreditation for the end of the Spring term. Whereas, BJU meets the minimum standards of accreditation. Arbusto 01:40, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List Getting Unwieldy

I am of the opinion that the list on this article is getting pretty unwieldy. I suggest that this list be removed and replaced with a link to the category page for Unaccredited institutions of higher learning. I see no point in having the redundancy of 2 lists of unaccredited institutions on Wikipedia. -- Bob K 06:32, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

No, I disagree. Schools without articles should be listed here as a "buyer beware" which serves as an information list. Please explain what you mean by "Unwieldy"; its an aphlabetical list of unaccredited places. Arbusto 23:30, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Deleted articles

For reference here are past articles that were listed, but were deleted. Arbusto 23:36, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Group of mills

The most prominent of the schools Arnett has been associated with is St. Luke School of Medicine, which has had a number of incarnations. St. Luke and its Southern Graduate Institute -- a division that focused on naturopathy -- are central to the criminal cases against Curran, Michael and Lammers. Arnett was also tied to Lady Malina Memorial Medical College; the University of Sciences, Arts and Technology, with an address on the volcanic island of Montserrat in the Caribbean; and the Asian-American University. ... By 2002, Arnett was forming new Internet medical schools, according to state records. He incorporated a company called Foreign Alternative Medical Education, as well as St. Luke School of Medicine. Both had a Falcon, Ky., address that Arnett used.[[30]]

Should we do any article on the person who ran these? Arbusto 04:49, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Another article:

Three men who have treated hundreds of patients around the country received their credentials from St. Luke School of Medicine, an online school with no accreditation. Prosecutors said the three did not receive a legitimate medical education and were practicing medicine without a license.[31]

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../l/i/s/Talk%7EList_of_unaccredited_institutions_of_higher_learning_8275.html"