Talk:Columbia Pacific University

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Columbia Pacific University article.
Article policies
Archives: 1
Archive
Archives
Archive 1 - CPU talk page contents through March 2007

Contents

[edit] There is a pattern of non-neutrality here

Despite the fact that the university was state approved, this has been removed multiple times. Les Carr's post-CPU affairs improperly blot what CPU was. It was an early experimental college. It had problems. Removal of a basic fact that is of great significance, namely that the university got 3 letters of approval from the state after being reviewed is improper. This slanting of the facts is against the principles of Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 169.237.95.13 (talk • contribs)

Well, the first paragraph after the lead is about initial licensing in California. I reverted most of your changes, but left a statement about state approval in the lead. Note that the lead is supposed be a summary of the important points in the article -- there would be no point in saying 3 times in the lead that the school was state-approved. --Orlady (talk) 02:37, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm sorry that you are mourning for the school. If you have sourced information its experimental innovations, the info could be considered for use in the article. --Orlady (talk) 02:37, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Another CPU alumnus - from the 1980s - bachelors level

I attended two traditional universities with a GPA of 3.75 in the sciences, and finished with CPU. I have since obtained a PhD at a traditional university with high GPA, (3.8) and I have an excellent publication record. Characterizing CPU as a degree mill is just false. The work I did at CPU was considerably harder than anything I experienced at any traditional university, and that includes my PhD program. I wrote somewhere around 1,000 pages of papers that were submitted. (Just one I submitted was 250 pages.) I got excellent education, although one of my mentors (PhD - Switzerland) expressed his frustration after a while at the rate of progress. (I was working more than full time.) It took me from 1982 until 1989 to finish two years of credit hours.

That said, I became aware by the time CPU shut down of problems. But most of this I learned directly from CPU's staff. Quality was variable, particularly after around 1992 when Dr. Crews seemed to pull back. There was not enough oversight on their mentors/professors. Some people had very intense programs like myself, others aparently did not.

I think their major problem was that they paid their mentors in way that didn't discourage them from refusing to pass students. As anyone who has been inside academia well knows, PhDs/professors tend to do what they are paid to do like anyone else. Some of their mentors took advantage of it I think. Others did not. I think another major problem was that they were founded on a basis of trust by at least one person who is very idealistic, Dr. Crews. Some of that trust got abused and there weren't systems in place to deal with it.

I gave my recommendations to them once, I think it was around 1995 or so, but I could be wrong. The gist of those recommendations were:

A. To pay their mentor-professors a regular wage rather than a project wage. (Minimize part-time staff.)

B. To do thorough statistical quality control audits each year of a statistically valid sample of their mentor-professors and students. It wasn't possible to do complete audits on everyone and no school does. Publish the results of these audits each year. Make management changes based on them.

C. To make more use of standardized testing. For instance, I suggested they use the GRE examination for the field of study as a required element of graduating with a bachelor's degree, setting cutoff values for their students.

In 1993 I talked about the possibility of entering a PhD program with CPU. The dean called me back and he told me that his recommendation was that I should go to a traditional program. I questioned him about why, and he told me that he had concerns about where things were going. He didn't feel it was fair to suggest I do it through CPU. A degree mill would not have done that. (I do not remember his name, nor if he remained with them to the end.)

I also came to CPU because of Bear's guide. Since that time there are many such programs all over the USA. Many have had growing pains. But there is a huge difference between a degree mill and a university that has variable quality. At the time I enrolled, it was one of the only programs of its kind. They were ground breakers. Now we have University of Phoenix and many others.

69.230.118.203 (talk) 02:17, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Very few states restrict the use of CPU degrees as credentials

The article states "but several other states restrict the use of CPU degrees as credentials" but in fact there is only 1 reference to partially support this, the State of Michigan restricts it for Civil Service workers. It seems to me this statement should be deleted and it was written by someone who is on a crusade against thousands of CPU alumni and could hardly be considered as objective. There were statements previously in this Wiki referencing Texas and Oregon, both of which lead to dead links. If anything, the statement should say that CPU degrees are widely recognized and accepted worldwide and by nearly all major US companies and the US Government. That is the TRUTH. I also take issue with the See Also containing "Diploma Mills." What's the implication here? My degree is valid, legal and recognized by the top companies in the world. What right does someone have to say my degree is not real? Clearly this wiki has the State of California's statement that Degrees granted before 1997 were legal and valid. Further when I received my degree CPU had full approval of the State of California to grant degrees. I did not buy a piece of paper! I've tried to correct this wiki, but have been warned to not touch the CPU wiki or I'll be blocked, with my content mostly being reversed. Yet the reverted content is very inaccurate, irrelevant, and some of it is slanderous. 74.138.83.249 03:56, 21 August 2007 (UTC)Curt Hawley curthawley@curthawley.com

The links to Texas and Oregon's information were dead, thank you for pointing this out. I was able to find current links that support the statements about how these states view degrees from CPU, and have restored the material. The section about California talks about pre- and post-1997 degrees. I'd echo Will's comment below about approved vs. accredited - they are not the same thing, and we've been through this at length before on this talk page. I'd be happy to work with you on some of these concerns once you've read through the talk history of this page. Cheers, Skinwalker 12:55, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

It's interesting to know that you are willing to do the research to back up the rare limitations on CPU degrees. If you are truly unbiased, are you now going to list every one of the 50 states and US territories and explain how they recognize the degrees? Will you also allow Alumni to present a list of companies and institutions that have accepted CPU degrees? I keep seeing how you folks talk about being neutral and unbiased, but what I see is quite the opposite. The elephant in the living room is that most states, the Federal Government, and thousands of companies and institutions have recognized CPU degrees as valid. I eagerly await your unbiased and neutral research. Curthawley 13:40, 21 August 2007 (UTC)curthawley

I think you missed my point about what you are calling "approved" vs. "accredited". In 1981, when I enrolled with CPU, having the approval of the State of California was far more credible than any accreditation that existed at the time. This is 2007, and accreditation carries a far different contextual relevance, mainly due to the internet and other technologies which have nourished the pervasiveness of "diploma mills" in recent years. You may have had similar discussions with others before, but the issue remains unresolved. The Wiki is slanted making CPU seem like a scam. The first line of the description, which makes the greatest impression starts out with "unaccredited." I motion that the word unaccredited be moved to a new section and the subject of that section be such that it explores all points of view, and particularly it's relevance in the historical context. Curthawley 13:28, 21 August 2007 (UTC)curthawley

Thank you for your comments, Curt. Unfortunately, I'm not aware of much of a historical change in the status or relevance of the concept of accreditation since the 1950's. Approval means that a state licenses a facility to operate - that is, to occupy buildings, pay employees, collect tuition/fees and so on. Approval is completed by the state. Accreditation means that a school meets academic standards as evaluated by an non-governmental agency (at least in the US). Even now, accreditation agencies have arisen that accredit nontraditional schools - take a look at the educational accreditation article. I should also point out having a degree from an unaccredited school is not a huge black mark - many seminaries and theological schools are not accredited, and their graduates are held in high regard in their specific fields. I realize you have strong feelings about this topic. On Wikipedia we have to use reliable sources to determine the factual basis of articles, not personal experience. Can you find some good sources for your claims? Cheers, Skinwalker 13:46, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
Hmm, upon review of the BPPVE info in the article it seems that the state of California was involved in approving CPU's curriculum (e.g. not just a license to operate as I claimed above) in the 1980s, but changes to the law in the late 80s led ultimately to the state taking action against CPU. CPU was, however, never accredited by a regional accreditation authority, so we can continue to describe it as unaccredited. I'd really like to get some references on the changing law in the 1980s and how it led to changes at BPPVE. Cheers, Skinwalker 17:11, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

It would seem in your zeal to make CPU seem a sham you did not dig deep enough with the state of Oregon for example. I made a simple email request to the ODA and got this response:

Oregon law changed in 2005, and we now allow use of CPU degrees from any period during which the school held state approval to issue degrees. The only requirement (imposed by the legislature, not our office) is that the degree user always include a disclaimer of accreditation with the degree on a resume, web site etc. The disclaimer now appears in the innards of ORS 348.609.

Our long list of schools is not a list of diploma mills, as commonly thought, but a list of all schools that have some kind of restriction on the use of degrees. That's why CPU is still on it.

Let us know if you have more questions.


Alan L. Contreras Administrator, Office of Degree Authorization Oregon Student Assistance Commission 1500 Valley River Drive No. 100 Eugene OR 97401 (541) 687-7452 fax (541) 687-7419 alan.L.contreras@state.or.us Information: http://www.osac.state.or.us/oda Messages to and from this e-mail address may be available to the public under Oregon law.


Please add this rather significant and easily verifiable piece of information to the wiki. And I still look forward to seeing how ALL other states handle CPU degrees specifically since you insist it is an issue. And again I implore you to set up a separate section surrounding the debate about the relevance of accreditation for a school that closed 10 years ago with many people receiving their degrees more than 20 years ago. This historical relevance to degrees issued in the early 80's is NOT the same as Universities and "diploma mills" operating today. Accrediting bodies and laws have evolved greatly during the past 20 years. You can not apply current standards to something that happened decades ago! Curthawley 22:16, 21 August 2007 (UTC)curthawley

About the only difference in ORS 348.609 that I can discern (and I am not a lawyer) is that individuals who do not disclose that their degree is from a non-accredited school are no longer criminally liable. The law has been changed to civil liability, not criminal. Only a handful of states regulate the use of unaccredited degrees. And, finally, I am not aware of any "debate" over the relevance of accreditation other than the one we are having. Please stop assuming bad faith, and produce some reliable sources that document your claims. Private emails are not reliable sources, but I would like to see what question you asked Mr. Contreras to precipitate his reply, so it doesn't feel like I'm playing Jeopardy. Cheers, Skinwalker 22:40, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not assuming bad faith, I'm experiencing it. If you are truly interested why don't you contact Alan Contreas and ask your questions directly, that way you won't have to wonder if the original question I posted was really what I said? Since you have taken it upon yourself to interpret the legalities of my degree, I expect (in good faith) that you will take this task seriously. Were you around in the early 80's researching the question of Accreditation? I doubt it. I WAS. It was my future credentials that were at stake. The credibility of web sources is totally meaningless then wikipedia is no different than propaganda. The only difference can come from an arrival of an increasing approximation of the Truth. To simply have lies and distortions which are merely replicated does not make them any more factual or relevant. Curthawley 16:25, 22 August 2007 (UTC)curthawley

I repeat: please produce some reliable sources that document your position. We are at an impasse until you do. Cheers, Skinwalker 16:31, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

The current statement about Oregon Law is not correct. The reference link to the law is correct, but you have not changed the statement associated with it. It is no longer accurate. I ask that you remove it until there can be agreement (through discussions with the state of OR, of which you approve) I have posted documentation above, and if the state of Oregon is not a credible source on state of Oregon Law, then who is? Curthawley 16:43, 22 August 2007 (UTC)curthawley

[edit] Removal of facts from this wiki

Columbia Pacific University operated as a legally approved degree granting institution in the State of California for many years. As such there are several thousand Alumni! I don't understand how posting that information to this article would be wrong? Yet when I did, it was removed. Why would you block that there are thousands of Alumni? 74.138.83.249 04:25, 21 August 2007 (UTC)Curt Hawley curthawley@curthawley.com

"Approved" is not the same as "accredited". Please review the disucssions we've already had on this talk page. We're open to improving the article, but it must remain neutral. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:15, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Will, please see my note to skinwalker, and my motion in the above section regarding this same topic. Regards. Curthawley 13:41, 21 August 2007 (UTC)curthawley

Is there some reason why Dr. Lester Carr had Dr. removed before his name? The flimsy articles used as a reference even refer to him as Dr. I assume the original poster removed Dr. to further discredit him, and thereby CPU? Personally it seems to me that CCWU needs it's own Wiki article and there should simply be a link to it from the CPU article if necessary. I would think only someone bashing CPU would find what Dr. Carr did after CPU to be relevant. But in my view, it's not relevant to this article. Yet, if it is to remain, you could at least refer to the man by his appropriate title. I also find it very interesting that such an anal probe of the main founder Dr. Crews is not part of the article. I'm amazed at the definition of neutral and unbiased here. Curthawley 22:28, 21 August 2007 (UTC)curthawley

Please assume good faith. Academic titles are removed from every article in which they're found. It's nothing to do with any individual. May I suggest that you spend a little time getting acquainted with this project before telling us what we're doing wrong? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:38, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
Anal probe? ROFL! Skinwalker 22:46, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
I'm sorry, that was rude of me. Skinwalker 16:42, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm learning that it's presently a very subjective reality. So do you agree with putting the subject of Accreditation and it's relevance into a separate section? Also do you agree with putting CCWU into it's own article and changing the wordy explanations of it here into simple links? Curthawley 16:16, 22 August 2007 (UTC)curthawley

I do not agree with removing the subject of accreditation to its own section on this page or another page. The ramifications of having an unaccredited degree is described at length on the educational accreditation page, linked to in the first sentence of this article, which states: "... it is possible for postsecondary educational institutions and programs to elect not to seek accreditation but nevertheless provide a quality postsecondary education. Yet, other unaccredited schools simply award degrees and diploma without merit for a price.". I also do not agree with moving any CCWU material from this article. This link [1] demonstrates that Carr moved CPU to Montana and this link [2] corroborates that CPU was later renamed CCWU. Skinwalker 16:42, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

But you still fail to see the point that this happened in the PAST, when the subject of accreditation was not as evolved as it is today. It's not appropriate to retroactively apply criteria from one era to another. By simply putting the word "unaccredited" in the first line, it does not explain the actual standing of the University during the time it operated. Truth is not served by a simple one word branding (of a word and issue that is far more meaningful and evolved today) of the school. Curthawley 16:54, 22 August 2007 (UTC)curthawley

[edit] Oregon law and Columbia Pacific degrees

It has come to my attention that Oregon law regarding the use of CPU degrees is not well understood. As of 2005, Oregon allows the use of CPU degrees issued during the school's period of California licensure, provided that any such use carries the disclaimer of accreditation required by the legislature (ORS 348.609). It is no longer illegal to use a CPU degree here provided that the disclaimer is always included. It was illegal during the period 1997-2004.

Alan Contreras, Oregon Office of Degree Authorization 159.121.237.4 16:49, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, Alan. Your IP address resolves to Oregon's state government network, so I can presume that you are who I think you are. Anyways, can you comment on the accuracy of the following statement from the article?

"Oregon lists degrees from both CPU and CCWU as "unaccredited degrees", and thus prohibited for various uses under Oregon law. The use of "unaccredited degrees" in violation of this prohibition can result in civil penalties."

I think a more accurate version would be:

"Oregon lists degrees from CPU as unaccredited degrees. The use of post-1997 degrees from CPU is prohibited. The use of pre-1997 degrees for employment purposes requires a disclaimer, without which civil penalties can be imposed."

My understanding is that CPU degrees from before 1997 (when CA revoked its licensure) are allowed if the disclaimer is used, and that degrees from after 1997 are still prohibited. It also seems that the new ORS 348.609 removed criminal penalties (misdemeanors) related to the use of unaccredited degrees, and made penalties civil in nature. Is this correct? Cheers, Skinwalker 17:08, 22 August 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Comment from CPU alumnus

You must excuse me - I am a newcomer to Wikipedia and am unsure of how to make my comment. Given the slant of the entry on Columbia Pacific University I am reluctant to give my name, and thereby earn the unpleasant scorn that may result.

I am a retired lecturer who, prior to having CPU recommended to me by John Bear and also by someone at the O.U. in England, had gained Masters degrees at two highly regarded Universities in England, together with three postgraduate diplomas. I gained my Ph.D. in 1983.

I had subsequently learned that CPU were in difficulties some years after I had retired, but am not qualificed to comment on these issues. From what is stated, things apparently went wrong. However, at the time I gained my Ph.D. there was no question of any lack of authenticity or validity in this qualification, something that the main article fails to make clear. The innuendos contained generally about this University are a serious disservice to those who gained their degrees prior to 1997. Lumped together, emotive terms such as "diploma mill" and "fraudulent" are most unfair and might be deemed to apply to all degrees awarded.

A few years ago I contacted CPU, and asked for some explanation as to what was going on. Again, I am not qualified to comment about recent details, but I was given to understand that the attack on the University was more for political rather than academic ones. From the start I had learned that accreditation was not being sought because the University did not have residential facilities which I understood was a prerequisite for accreditation.

Being long since retired I have no personal axe to grind, but I do think that the general thrust of this article on Columbia Pacific University is of a disparaging and derogatory nature and, as I say, most unfair to those who gained degrees prior to 1997. I am sure that things could be put better, and suggest that as it stands it comes over as a bit of a witch-hunt.

Yours respectfully, Argentina98 09:15, 24 August 2007 (UTC)Robert

The only comment I have is that I have *never* heard that "residential facilities" are required for any accreditation. I could be completely mistaken but that doesn't even sound remotely plausible.
If you have some verifiable details we can add to this article then I'm sure that we'd be happy to take a look at them to see how best to work them into the article. --ElKevbo 09:36, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

That was a quick response! Thank you for that. Regarding residential facilities, that was what I was given to understand from a reply from CPU at the time. The problem I have is that the general slant of the article is derogatory and negative. In fairness to the former graduates a clearer distinction needs to be made between the University prior to the 1990s and subsequent events. Otherwise all graduates are tarred with the same brush.

Certainly, at the time I gained my Ph.D., which was in the early eighties, the University had a good standing. I was present when several highly regarded people received their honorary fellowships, which surely was an endorsement. I remember talking to them afterwards. They included Barry Taylor, Chief Education Officer, Anthony Hopkins, the distinguished musicologist, Professor Lewis, at the Open University (who actually recommended me to CPU), and Jill Knight, MP. Memory fades with time, but I am sure that in the early eighties there was an article in the Times Educational Supplement praising the CPU for its rigour and forward-looking approach.

But I'd ask you and Will Beback to look at the article as a whole. Any dispassionate reader could be forgiven for writing off CPU in its entirety. It really is unfairly slanted.

Argentina98 10:04, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
I would really like to see the Times Educational Supplement article. My access to Lexis-Nexis is fried, though, and I'm not sure it would even have an article that old. Can someone find the article and summarize it? Cheers, Skinwalker 17:02, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
Can you please supply some bibliographic details about the article? I'd be happy to try to find a copy when I get back to campus on Monday (you might want to e-mail me to make sure I don't forget!). --ElKevbo 17:08, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
Google searching tells me that the article was in the Times Educational Supplement issue published August 5th, 1983. That's about all the biblio-details I can find at the moment, I'll add more over the weekend if I find any. Cheers, Skinwalker 17:17, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
Title and author would be most helpful if you can find them. --ElKevbo 17:30, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
I found several NY Times articles that mention Columbia Pacific U, but none matching this description. The hits include: 1988 column about nutrition quackery, mentioning one nutrition quack with a degree from this school; 1986 article about nutrition quackery; 1985 column on evaluating nutritional advice; 1997 theater article partly about university alumnus John Gray, a psychotherapist; 1981 review of a book by alum Maxine Schnall --orlady 17:48, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
Actually, the Times Educational Supplement is published by The Times, a UK paper owned by Rupert Murdoch (ugh) and unrelated to the New York Times. Cheers, Skinwalker 18:09, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
Presumably this 2005 article about John Gray is not the one you were looking for.--orlady 18:54, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
Just a thought - an article on CPU would most likely have been in the Times Higher Education Supplement (whose online archives only go back to 1994). There's probably a UK editor somewhere with access to a library with the past editions from the 1980s, probably on microfiche..... -- SiobhanHansa 19:17, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Leaving aside the minutae, what I find disappointing is the whole slant in the article. The authors seem determined to show up faults, real or spurious, at the same time omitting to mention any good aspect of the University, particularly in the years in which it was authorized. The term "fraudulent" screams at one throughout. It puts a real question about motives behind the article.

My take is that the formation of the CPU met some very real needs, the new institution was led by people of integrity, and at the time was regarded as innovative and demanding. I personally found the work demanding and resent the implication that my degree, gained in 1983, was not worth the paper it was written on. This is I suggest a most unbalanced document masquerading, by its many references, as authentic and balanced.

Argentina98 08:50, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for sharing your opinion. However the personal opinions of editors cannot be used as a source for the article. We must rely on sources that can be verified by Wikipedia readers. If those sources tend to find fault with the subject, then we can't help but convey that viewpoint. Other verifiable, significant viewpoints are welcome and necessary as well. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 08:54, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

You must surely know, Will, that there are always ways of presenting "facts" that can colour an entire article. To cite one case, this article goes into considerable detail about some alleged examples of wrong-doing. It rightly says that the CPU answered in detail - 82 points I think - but the reply was not given the same coverage. That is what I meant about the slant. It is unnecessarly negative in the way it is presented.

And, I suggest, verbose: there is a lot of minutae in the article that is totally unnecessary. To summarise, the CPU was OK until the 1990s, for one reason or another was savaged (I would say by parties with a vested interest) and has ceased operations. Half of what appears is superfluous, and is extremely unfair to those who gained their qualifications when the University was legitimately in being. Argentina98 08:12, 5 September 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Other States

I think it's important to point out that several states restrict the use of CPU degrees. I've attempted to preserve this in the intro, but I've been reverted. This[3] edit summary is technically correct, in that other states (e.g. Michigan and Texas) do not differentiate between pre- and post-1997 degrees. They restrict all degrees from CPU, regardless of when they were awarded. Oregon seems to have changed its law recently (see discussion above) to allow pre-1997 degree use, but they similarly restrict post-1997 degrees, and a degree earned at any time requires the use of a disclaimer in the state of Oregon. Is there a better way we can keep this material in the intro while better reflecting our sources? This is a relevant issue, as people with pre-1997 degrees have gotten in trouble for using them.[4] Cheers, Skinwalker 22:17, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I think you are reading far more into those state lists than is actually there. In general, appearing on those lists merely indicates that the school has been determined to be unaccredited; often there is additional information specific to a particular school that also can be trusted. By itself, the fact that a school is on a list does not provide a definitive indication of the legalities of presenting a degree from that school in the state that maintains the list.
For example, read the intro to the Oregon list, particularly the part that I highlighted in italics: "The following list of unaccredited degree suppliers is maintained by ODA for the protection of the citizens of Oregon and their post-secondary schools by identifying those degree suppliers that do not meet the requirements of ORS 348.609(1). This is not a comprehensive list and new suppliers emerge every day, many of which remain unknown to ODA. The list contains degree suppliers that may not now exist, may never have existed, exist only as unregulated businesses, operate under exemptions in state laws or operate with state approval outside Oregon. Users of degrees from these suppliers may contact ODA with any questions about the legal status of such degrees for use as credentials in Oregon. ODA cannot give legal advice but can provide information about how a degree is treated, why it is treated that way and steps that a user can take to obtain a formal evaluation from ODA or another evaluator. Employers, potential students, potential clients and others doing business with users of these degrees should take appropriate steps to determine the true nature of the credentials listed here in order to ensure that degrees are genuine and are being used legally."
That quotation tells me that appearing on the list should not, by itself, be construed as a indication of legality or illegality.
--orlady 23:15, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
I think the Oregon list is somewhat ambiguous. I am still trying to think of a good way to incorporate Oregon's treatment of CPU degrees into the article. They have not updated their website to reflect the 2005 change in ORS 348.609. It seems that pre-97 CPU degree holders may use their degrees IF they include a disclaimer on their resume stating that CPU was not accredited. Post-97 degrees are still prohibited. You may be right in that I am reading too much into Oregon's list.
However, the lists from Michigan and Texas are unambiguous. CPU degrees cannot be used as qualifications for civil service positions in Michigan, no matter whether it is pre or post-97, and the use of CPU degrees in Texas is a Class B misdemeanor. There are no qualifiers on either list stating whether the school can be trusted or not. I propose including the following sentence in the introduction: "Currently, Michigan (ref MI list) and Texas (ref TX list) restrict the use of CPU degrees." What do you think of this as a start? Cheers, Skinwalker 01:19, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
I'm no lawyer, and I've never played one on TV, but my concern is legalistic. My concern is that (for the most part) those lists do not provide definitive legal opinions about degrees from specific schools. For example, it is clear from the Texas site that it is illegal to use "fraudulent or substandard degrees" in Texas in advertisements, in connection with employment or professional licensing, or to gain admission to an educational institution, and that degrees are "fraudulent or substandard" if "conferred in another state in violation of that state's laws" (this is clearly true of CPU degrees after 1997) or "conferred in another state by an institution that was not accredited by an accreditor recognized by the Coordinating Board and that has not been approved by the Coordinating Board for its degrees to be used in Texas" (this is apparently true of all CPU degrees, in the view of the keepers of the Texas list), but nothing on the website says that Texas has definitively determined that use of pre-1997 degrees from CPU is prohibited under the Texas Penal Code. I don't think a Wikipedia article about CPU can state that particular conclusion as fact. --orlady 20:44, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
I disagree - Texas and Michigan specifically list CPU degrees as illegal to use (TX) and unusable for civil service positions (MI). I'm not a laywer either, which is why I'm having trouble figuring out how to neutrally portray Oregon's current law regarding pre- and post-97 CPU degrees. Still, CPU is listed at Texas's website under the header "Institutions Whose Degrees Are Illegal To Use In Texas". That is a definitive determination by Texas that CPU degrees earned at any time are illegal to use. Without this designation I would agree that at least pre-97 CPU degrees would have some wiggle room, but they specifically list CPU as an institution whose degrees cannot be used in their state. Similarly, the wording of Michigan's list states that "degrees from these institutions will not be accepted by the Civil Service Commission", and then they list a number of instititions making no distinction between pre- and post-97 degrees. I agree that Oregon does not specifically list CPU, and that makes it impossible to state that CPU degrees are illegal in Oregon, but Texas and Michigan unambiguosly name CPU degrees as sanctionable. Cheers, Skinwalker 22:15, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
Why provide a more specific negative interpretation on the listing status of CPU than is provided for the typical diploma mill? Compare the article on Madison University, which says "Madison University is an non-accredited distance learning university located in Gulfport, Mississippi. Madison is listed as an unaccredited and/or substandard institution by four US States.[1][2][3][4] The state of Mississippi considers Madison an "unapproved" college.[5] It has been referred to as a diploma mill by the state of Oregon.[6]" and "Since is not accredited by an accreditation body recognized by its country, its degrees and credits might not be acceptable to employers or other institutions, and use of degree titles may be restricted or illegal in some jurisdictions." To make more definitive statements than that (e.g., "if you go to this school, you will be sent to jail") is to venture into the realm of amateur legal advice, or even potentially libel.--orlady 02:57, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
Oh. I'm sorry. I would be perfectly happy with substituting statements like that for the version I advocated. I did not realize you were disagreeing with listing the specific sanctions imposed by various jurisdictions - I thought you were objecting to listing negative consequences at all. I'll implement the changes tomorrow unless there are further comments. Cheers, Skinwalker 03:17, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
Hopefully, we do agree. (I guess you hadn't run across my work on articles such as List of unaccredited institutions of higher learning.) I think it's perfectly OK to say that CPU appears on the various lists, but I don't think that those lists provide a basis for Wikipedia to be making statements like "Class B misdemeanor in Texas" in connection with any specific school.--orlady 04:20, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] CPU Was Accredited

The opening line in Wikipedia describes Columbia Pacific University (CPU) as an "unaccredited" school. This is a misleading and false characterization . It is also a pejorative POV, which has no place in a serious encyclopedia. Accreditation is a voluntary process in the US. Regional accreditation is not identical with accreditation because there are other forms of legitimate school authorization. Unfortunately the six regional accrediting associations have brainwashed the American public that they are the only legitimate agencies of academic approval. Currently they monopolize the academic market, forming in fact a cartel, which the Sherman Act views as a felony. Moreover, CPU was A California accredited ("approved") school and its state approval was also recognized by the US Department of Education as equivalent to regional accreditation. CPU graduates (1978-1997) are eligible to sit for the California Bar examination, and for licensure with the Board of Psychology.

Coda 22 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.239.1.230 (talk • contribs)

  • "Unaccredited" means "lacking accreditation"; it looks to me like a simple statement of fact, not a pejorative. The only sourced information I have seen indicates that CPU was state-approved, which is not the same thing as accreditation in the US. If you have reliable sources indicating it was accredited, please share them. --Orlady (talk) 01:59, 17 January 2008 (UTC)


[edit] CPU Underwent Successful Peer Reviews

Saying that CPU was unaccredited because it lacked Regional Accreditation is like saying: Volvo is not a car because it is not Chevrolet. Regional accreditation is not identical with accreditation. In cartelizing the certification process of tertiary education, the regional accrediting associations undermine the democratic foundations of America, oppress educational pluralism and academic freedom.

The Oxford Dictionary defines the word “accredited” as “officially recognized”. CPU had various forms of official recognition. Wikipedia itself states that in the US “the accreditation of schools has long been established as a Peer Review process” for quality assurance. As a California State accredited (“approved”) school, CPU successfully underwent peer reviews by professional visiting committees. California State Department of Education documents show that CPU’s approved status in 1986 was equivalent to regional accreditation. And as a California authorized institution, the 1984 HEP (Higher Education Directory) of the US Department of Education, listed CPU as an accredited school.

“Unaccredited” is synonymous with unauthorized, unlicensed, untrustworthy, bogus, illicit, unlawful, fraudulent. So to classify CPU as “unaccredited” is misleading, pejorative and defamatory. It is obviously an unacceptable POV. It also needs some form of Disambiguation!

Paul Hartal —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.131.182.80 (talk) 18:48, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Not all educational accreditation in the U.S. is regional accreditation, but that does not change the fact that CPU was not accredited. Users can read the linked articles to find out what "unaccredited" signifies. --Orlady (talk) 21:45, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Collapsed thread started by banned user