Talk:List of unaccredited institutions of higher education/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 → Archive 5

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)

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.

Failed AFD

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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? —Preceding unsigned comment 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)

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]

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)

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)

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). u◦p◦p◦l◦a◦n◦d 11:43, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

See also

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)

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)

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. —Preceding unsigned comment 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)

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.

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)

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. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aic712 (talk • contribs)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Deleted articles

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

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]

Removing warning signs

This is an extremely pov section, and also violates WP:NOT wikipedia is not a how to guide.--Crossmr 03:27, 8 March 2007 (UTC)


Possible additions/amendments

Not sure about how to represent/add this info. Any ideas?

http://www.uofcanbourne.org.uk 44 207 900 6917 (also used by university of Lamberhurst) 243 Russell Gardens W14 8EZ


University of Lamberhurst http://www.uoflamberhurst.org.uk/ 50 Great College St.London, SW1P 3


http://www.denbourne.org.uk/contacts.html 242 Russell Gardens London, England United Kingdom W15 8EZ Phone: +(44) 20-7100-9790 Fax: +(44) 20-7980-4900 website almsot identical to canbourne

http://www.bellingtonu.org.uk 44 207 900 6921 same as www.dorchesteru.org.uk http://www.bedfordu.org.uk 44 207 900 6923 (same http://www.shaftesburyu.org.uk) www.summersetu.org.uk 44 207 900 6924 same as www.strassfordu.org.uk

note www.sheppertonu.org.uk used 44 207 900 6922 as did www.sherwoodu.org.uk


44 207 900 6918 ashbourne www.ashbourneu.org.uk Ashbourne University 50 London House, 260 Fulham Road, London SW10 9EL United Kingdom (Now offline)


SUMMERSET UNIVERSITY

30 Queens Rd London NW4 2EH United Kingdom

Tel\Fax: 44 207 900 6924

London College for Higher Education http://www.collegeoflondon.org/ 2 Priory Court, Pilgrim Street London, EC4V 6DE United Kingdom

Fax: +44 (207) 900-1785

Good additions. Feel free to add them yourself. Everyone can edit wikipedia. Arbustoo 03:28, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Serampore University / BTESS India

The Board of Theological Education of the Senate of Serampore (since modified to Board of Theological Education of the Senate of Serampore College) and Serampore University aka BTESS was listed by an anonymous editor on April 26, 2007. The latter is formally known and recognised as Serampore College website and is a well established theological faculty and accreditor in India. The institution was founded in 1818 and incorporated by Royal Charter in 1827 by King Frederick VI of Denmark and subsequently by the Serampore College Act, 1918 (Bengal Act IV of 1918). The latter legislation has remained in force and has been subsequently amended four times; 1937, 1950, 1951 & 1997; by the Government of Bengal (later West Bengal) reference.

The institution is also recognised as a Grant-in-aid minority college by the University Grants Commission (India) under Section 2(f) & 12(b) of the University Grants Commission Act 1956 reference and accredited by the National Assessment and Accreditation Council of India reference.

As a result, I will be removing the entries from this list. - Bob K 20:44, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I understand there is some dispute regarding the usage of the name Serampore University. This is used by some of the alumni and has resulted in the nascent edit war. This is due to the historical nature of this institution and an explanation is provided here:

The University Grant Commission, in 1958, noted that as Serampore College was functioning as a University in the Faculty of Divinity under a Bengal Legislation (Act No. IV of 1018) it was not necessary to deem it to be a University under Section 3 of the U.G.C. Act. Any difficulty that may be experienced by the College should be resolved in consultation with the State Government. The Commission also noted that the Theological degrees granted by Serampore College had not been included among the degrees to be notified by the Commission under Section 22 (3) of the U.G.C. Act and that therefore there would be no bar to the College continuing to award these degrees.

The University Grant Commission also took the view that, as the Serampore College in the Faculty of Theology is functioning under the Act of Bengal Legislature, it is a legally constituted body of University standing entitled to give its own degrees in theology. Students of Serampore College in the Faculty of Theology are, therefore, entitled to all the privileges of students in any of the other universities and colleges in India.

The Commission also communicated, and certified to the College that the name of Serampore College, Hooghly is included in the list of Colleges maintained under Section 2 (f) of the UGC Act, 1956 under the head of Non-Government Colleges teaching up to Bachelor's Degree.

All this is a matter of public record. Hope this helps. - Bob K 04:07, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

The School of Accounting and Management

I observed that the School of Accounting Management (SAM) (Trinidad and Tobago) was listed under your "list of unaccredited institutions of higher learning" based on information in the UNESCO database. The reason is that, SAM offers degrees from external universities and their accrediation would not be Trinidad based. Even the newly established University of Trinidad and Tobago (UTT) (http://www.utt.edu.tt/) or the well established University of the Southern Caribbean (http://usc.edu.tt/) (formerly Caribbean Union Collge) is not listed in the UNESCO database. SAM offers degrees/diplomas from the (a) Anglia Ruskin University (http://www.anglia.ac.uk/ruskin/en/home.html) (b) University of Huddersfield (http://www.hud.ac.uk/) (c) London Metropolitan University (http://www.londonmet.ac.uk/) (d) National Computer Centre (UK)(http://www.nccedu.com/) (e) Henley Management College (http://www.henleymc.ac.uk/). SAM is further recognised by the state accrediting agencies the National Institute of Higher EducationResearch Science and Technology (NIHERST), the Accreditation Council of Trinidad and Tobago and participates in state funding program which subsidises tuition (by 100% for undergraduate degrees; 50% for graduate degrees) to all accredited institutions of higher learning. I think that the the listing is unfair to the School of Accounting and Management, its current students and graduates. Colinlezama 18:12, 31 May 2007 (UTC)colinlezama

  • The Accreditation Council of Trinidad and Tobago is the successor to NIHERST's accrdeiting department and all information has not yet been handed over resulting in both entities running parallel. A list of recognised schools and accepted degrees can be readily furnished by NIHERST upon request. I will refrain from making this request and/or furnishing the list to this forum, lest I be accused of a particular bias as I am current student of the School of Accounting and Management. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Colinlezama (talk • contribs)
Please do not remove schools from the list without a source. Its missing from the UNESCO list. Until you provide one that is better, do not remove it. Arbustoo 23:51, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Schools issuing degrees from other universities isn't uncommon, and I'm not sure that any body legitimately doing so should be on this list. I also wonder if inclusion in such a list as this ought to rely on more than one source. Indeed I would contend that "Please do not remove schools from the list without a source" should read "Please do not add schools to the list without strong sourcing". --kingboyk 10:55, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
  • That's exactly correct. The majority of the schools on this list are unsourced. JJay 12:21, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

The School of Accounting and Management claims to be the accredited institution that gives out degrees on behalf of other institutions, not the other way around. Its worth noting this school was deleted Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/School of Accounting and Management, and two other articles which are KNOWN diploma mills were started by this same user. Arbustoo 16:26, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Also this place claims "accreditation" from "National Computer Centre ltd." The NCC is a real accreditor in the UK-- IN THE UK not Trinidad and Tobago. However, School of Accounting and Management DOES NOT appearon its register of accredited (this link is for the National ComputING Centre not the National ComputER Centre) schools. And does not appear on UNESCO's list (so it doesn't appear on two very relevant lists and was created by someone who created articles about diploma mills). Also isn't is strange for there to be no faculty list on its website? Also it seems this schools name comes up a lot in relation to "degreeme.com" Arbustoo 16:26, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

  • The more sources, the better. Feel free to add them. Arbustoo 16:26, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

It would therefore imply that the two other schools referred here should also be on the list as they are not on the UNESCO list either. The fact is at the end of your studies you do not receive a degree from the School of Accounting and Management but from the universities prior mentioned, all recognised, accredited institutions. I wish to also proffer the School of Business and Computer Science, another Trinidad and Tobago tertiary level institution which offers degrees from the University of London...this school is also not on the UNESCO list but the University whose degrees they offer, are. These institutions are official agents for these well accredited universities.

May I digress and also proffer the Presbyterian Seminary, St. Andrew's Theological College (SATC), which does offer it's own qualification (Licentiate in Theology)...and is extremely unaccredited, yet this unaccredited qualification is recognised by no less an institution that Princeton Seminary. There are records of students who have moved directly from the SATC L.Th. to the Master of Arts in Theology at Princeton.

As long as School of Accounting and Management, School of Business and Computer and Computer Science, University of Trinidad and Tobago, University of Southern Caribbean continue to offer legitimate, ACCREDITED, internationally recognised degrees, from legitimate institutions, I will continually remove their names from the list. Colinlezama 02:05, 22 May 2007 (UTC)colinlezama

If other schools are lacking in accreditation add them. However, removing a school without a source is disruptive and will get you blocked. Arbustoo 02:57, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I wish to submit for your attention and comment the following information directly from the Henley website:

Trinidad & Tobago

Henley Management College has an international reputation as leader provider of management development programmes for individuals and organisations. As an executive business school, we serve the development needs of experienced practising managers. There has been a Henley presence in Trinidad since 1994 to work with the major companies and their managers to help improve their business and managerial performance.

Henley offers its services to individuals across the West Indies from its associate organisation based in Trinidad.


Contact details


Managing Director: Asaf Pirali Programme Director: Tricia Pirali


Address:

SCHOOL OF ACCOUNTING AND MANAGEMENT 1 - 3 McCarthy Street St Augustine, Trinidad WEST INDIES


Telephone:

+ 1868 - 662 7811 + 1868 - 663 6681 + 1868 - 662 6940 + 1868 - 662 5739


Fax:

+ 1 868 645 5613

Email: henley@samtt.com

Website: http://www.samtt.com/mbagm.htm


Alumni information

Henley has welcomed many individual managers and executives from West Indian organisations to its programmes in the UK and has a number of MBA Alumni from the West Indies. In support of these individuals, local enthusiasts have established the Henley Alumni Association.

Contact Details

West Indies (a virtual group) Camille Reid Henley MBA Coordinator e-mail: henley@samtt.com

School of Accounting and Management 1-3 McCarthy Street St Augustine, Trinidad West Indies http://www.henleymc.ac.uk/henleymc03/assocweb03.nsf/pages/D95C02E931D427AD80256DF2004D0DFA Colinlezama 10:20, 22 May 2007 (UTC)colinlezama

None of that is WP:RS. Arbustoo 16:27, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I will proffer no further argument at this point as I have written to the school, NCC, and the Anglia Ruskin University to communicate with you about the said school. Further, I am not sure that we are looking at the same NCC site. May I submit the following links for your attention and comment: http://www.nccedu.com/News%20and%20Links/Press%20Releases/PR_item.asp?PR_ID=392 (Note "Morrell Aberdeen") http://www.nccedu.com/Find%20A%20Centre/byQualification/single_centre.asp?Z=1160 http://www.nccedu.com/News%20and%20Links/Press%20Releases/PR_item.asp?PR_ID=387

http://www.henleyupdate.com/contact/

May I add this in closing, for the time being. The "Wikipedia" argument implies that Henley Management College, London Metropolitan University, Anglia Ruskin University, National Computing Centre are not reliable sources of whom they choose to conduct business on their own behalf. Does that imply "Wikipedia" is not a reliable source of information? END. Colinlezama 22:34, 22 May 2007 (UTC)colinlezama

After carefully examining your link you have confused National ComputER Center http://www.nccedu.com/ with National ComputING Center http://www.ncc.co.uk/. These are two separate entities. If you expect me to get my facts straight, so should you. Thus you have used the wrong tag on the list200.108.4.2 00:30, 23 May 2007 (UTC)colinlezama

I remove the school as http://www.nccedu.com/Find%20A%20Centre/centreinfo.asp?Z=1447 lists it as accredited. Arbustoo 03:49, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

May I add one more issue. "Answers.com" draws information from "Wikipedia" verbatim and are slow to update. As such some of the issues that are addressed here and would have been corrected/updated still appear on "Answers.com." One example being the section on diploma mills is still in the the "Answers" "list of unaccredited institutionss of higher learning" article.200.108.4.42 23:37, 7 June 2007 (UTC)colinlezama

CGTS

JJay edit summary: Chicago Graduate School of Theology. Unsourced and no mention of this except in relation to accredited CTU- what school are we talking about here?

What school are YOU talking about? Hint: dropping random acronyms isn't very helpful. How about a hint of a shred of evidence that the Chicago Graduate School of Theology -- at that exact title -- even exists, physically? --Calton | Talk 14:58, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

  • This is my point exactly. It is why I fact tagged the entry. The only Chicago graduate school of Theology that I can find is part of CTU. [32]. CTU is accredited by North Central Association of Colleges and Secondary Schools. SO you tell me, why is this unsourced entry on the list? JJay 15:15, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
  • ANd furthermore, why did you remove the fact tag without providing a source? JJay 15:16, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
A google search shows various people claiming degrees from some place called Chicago Graduate School of Theology from the 1960s and 1970s and a USDE search shows that there is no accredited school by that name. Per this discussion and the discussion below, do not remove schools without a proper source. Prove a school is accredited before removing it.
Why a google search is relevant to a school that awarded degrees in nearly 40 years ago is beyond me.
Also I remove the tag you added in. That tag says you dispute the entire list, but you seem to doubt two listings: one that is trying to be removed by someone who is interested in downplaying diploma mills and this one above which seems misguided. Arbustoo 15:40, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Your removal of the tag was a violation of policy and 3RR. Your edit warring here has to cease. I need a source that shows (1) that "Chicago graduate school of Theology" exists or existed 2) that the school is not accredited. The only Graduate schools of Theology I can find in Chicago are accredited. Maintaining a non-existent school like this without a source on this list is a source of confusion with the accredited Graduate School of Theology in Chicago. JJay 16:12, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Re-read, or have some you trust read, WP:3RR. I have not violated the rules. I'd explain it on your talk page, but it'll be removed. 1) D. James Kennedy claims a degree from "Graduate School of Theology in Chicago"[33] or Carol A. Jenkins claims a degree from "Graduate School of Theology in Chicago."[34] (note that page is from the Glendale Community College) 2) No school named "Graduate School of Theology in Chicago" appears as accredited. Arbustoo 16:40, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

SAM

  • It's entirely amazing to me that editors are adding unsourced entries to this list and then edit warring to maintain the entries - in violation of WP:V and apparently without doing any research on the institutions involved. The impact of this type of behavior on reputable schools and their students and alumni is extremely detrimental. SAM awards degrees in partnership with accredited UK universities. This is common in the Caribbean. It is also confirmed through a host of sources, but I would suggest that interested parties start by perusing this report from UNESCO, with special attention to page 33. [35] JJay 15:09, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
That says nothing about accreditation and its missing from UNESCO's list. I notice you are now disputing the list. Thus, I expect you to provide a clear, WP:RS that shows its accredited. Arbustoo 15:33, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
  • You've got this backwards. Where is your source for inclusion on this list? Where is your source that says this is a diploma mill or scam? SAM's degrees are awarded in partnership with UK accredited institutions. This is explict above or in this document from the Trinidadian government,[36]. Or from Henley Management School [37] and Anglia [38]. It's degrees are valid, issued through the partner institutions and keeping the school on this list is abusive. JJay 16:06, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
It claims "accreditation" from "National Computer Centre ltd." The NCC is a real accreditor in the UK-- IN THE UK not Trinidad and Tobago. However, School of Accounting and Management DOES NOT appearon its register of accredited schools. And does not appear on UNESCO's list (so it doesn't appear on two very relevant lists and was created by someone who created articles about diploma mills). Also isn't is strange for there to be no faculty list on its website? Also it seems this schools name comes up a lot in relation to "degreeme.com"

After carefully examining your link you have confused National ComputER Center http://www.nccedu.com/ with National ComputING Center http://www.ncc.co.uk/. These are two separate entities. If you expect me to get my facts straight, so should you. Thus you have used the wrong tag on the list

The School of Accounting and Management claims to be the accredited institution that gives out degrees on behalf of other institutions. Its worth noting this school was deleted Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/School of Accounting and Management, and two other articles which are KNOWN diploma mills were started by this same user.
Again, where is a WP:RS that says it is ACCREDITED? Arbustoo 16:46, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

It would be appreciated if you specify why each article was deleted, as worded, it implies that I supported the two known diploma mills, when in fact I added them to the list...one being "Colton University" which has been deleted from the list and to date has not yet be re-listed by "Wikipedia." The other was "Randford University." Colinlezama 20:59, 22 May 2007 (UTC)colinlezama

I see "Colton" has found its way back on the list. I'm impressed and must commend you for such quick action. 200.108.4.2 23:20, 22 May 2007 (UTC)colinlezama

1) Look at the page logs/ or afd; the communitity decided to delete the articles, such as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Colton University. 2) All you had to do was look at the list before you post. Arbustoo 03:07, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

After carefully examining your link you have confused National ComputER Center http://www.nccedu.com/ with National ComputING Center http://www.ncc.co.uk/. These are two separate entities. If you expect me to get my facts straight, so should you. Thus you have used the wrong tag on the list200.108.4.2 00:30, 23 May 2007 (UTC)colinlezama 

   I remove the school as http://www.nccedu.com/Find%20A%20Centre/centreinfo.asp?Z=1447 lists it as accredited. Arbustoo 03:49, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

My issue is not that the article was deleted, I have no objection with that as you have policy and standard to uphold but the way you worded the paragraph above makes appear as though I attempted to or gave supporting arguments in favour of, these two diploma mills...which is quite contrary to the truth.

Esalen Institute

Esalen does not purport to offer degree programs, as far as I have seen. Their continuing education programs seem to be accredited by the right organizations (the ones for psychologists and counselors by the APA and the California Board of Behavioral Sciences, the nursing ones through the California Board of Registered Nursing, etc.[39]), so I am removing the institution from the list. God only knows how it ended up on here. If I've missed something obvious, let me know. --Dynaflow babble 05:52, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

According to the United States Department of Education, it is not accredited. 1) The California Board of Registered Nursing is a governmental agency, it is not an accreditor. Accreditors are private organizations. 2) While it might appear on the APA's "sponsor" list, it does not appear on the APA accreditation lists (1), lists (2) lists(3) (or again see the USDE database). Please provide a link that says it is ACCREDITED. Arbustoo 18:24, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
The DE database does not say Esalen is an unaccredited institution of higher education. Esalen simply does not show up in the database -- because it is not an institution of higher education in the first place. Yes, it hosts continuing education programs that go toward various professions' requirements for CE to maintain a practitioner's licensure but, as the Esalen-hosted courses are approved by the appropriate licensing bodies, there doesn't seem to be a problem there. A CE provider doesn't need to be WASC'ed or anything like that in order to do legit CE. I think there might be some confusion about what Esalen is, and it's stuck in kind of a Catch-22 here on this list. It is an institution that is not accredited to offer degrees or certificates ... and so it doesn't, and it doesn't claim to. They can't show accreditation because they have never needed it, because they are not per se an educational institution. Please provide a link that says it's a college, seminary, or university, per the defining initial paragraph of the article. --Dynaflow babble 19:25, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
Just to clear this up: schools don't need "accreditation" and this page is for unaccredited institutions. Accreditation or lack thereof does not mean a school is bad or good.
1) The database is for accredited institutions; the institute is not in it. 2) This page is not exclusive depending on whether a place calls itself a seminary/college per the title: unaccredited institutions of higher learning. I will point out that according to the Esalen Institute it is "part college" (if you know this to be incorrect you should edit that article and cite what it is.) I don't see what offering a degree has to do with this. Many people attend institutions of high learning for specialized cerficicates (ie not degrees) for professional fields. That is why the APA (as you pointed out) and others offer accreditation. I fail to see the harm in keeping an unaccredited institution on the list that offers education courses.
The state of California, where it operates, considers it a school/educational facility.[40] What do you know that a governmental agency doesn't? Arbustoo 01:55, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

"The regulated programs listed below are evaluated as Degree granting programs (as defined by Article 8 of the Private Postsecondary and Vocational Education Reform Act), OR Non-Degree granting programs (as defined by Article 6,7 and Article 9 of the Reform Act), OR Registered programs (as defined by Article 9.5 of the Reform Act.), OR Religious Exempt programs (as defined by Section 94739 (b) (6) of the Private Postsecondary and Vocational Education Reform Act.) Please contact the BPPVE if further clarification is required." Listed are three massage courses.

That Esalen is called "school" by the form is, I would guess, due to that being the template the state workers have to fill in for any institution offering classes/workshops/etc. that require approval under California's byzantine educational statutes. Just picking random pages from this list, I find that Goodwill and the American Red Cross are also considered "schools" by the state of California for the purposes of that listing.

If it's the three state-listed massage courses that turn it into a college, then Esalen's certification from the National Certification Board for Therapeutic Massage and Bodywork [41] should be enough to allay any "cert-fraud" concerns. Who else would you expect to be the accreditor of note for a program like that? WASC? Even my university sought accreditation from NCBTMB when it added a massage therapy program [42], and believe me, the University of California is downright ruthless when it comes to seeking out the right certifications; we're not talking about an accreditation mill here.

But really, Esalen is not a college, unaccredited or otherwise. A few massage classes and some licensing-body approved CE courses do not a degree mill make, and I cannot prove that non-existent degree or certificate programs have accreditation -- again we get into a Catch-22. It just doesn't make sense to tar an institution as an "unaccredited institution of higher education" because they lack an accreditation they don't need, because they are not a de jure, or even de facto, institution of higher education. As for the Wikipedia article on Esalen calling it "part college" (ignoring the other dictionary definitions of "college"), we all know better than to cite a Wikipedia article as a source. I would find it hard, though, to hunt down a reference that says specifically that Esalen is not a college -- once again the Catch-22. It would probably only be slightly easier than finding a citation that says George W. Bush is not a giant salamander. --Dynaflow babble 05:49, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

See pages 79-81 here: [43]. The massage program seems to be the only in-house thing that grants certificates. It is approved by NCBTMB, the closest thing to an accrediting body you can get for that particular field. Their courses that are specifically hooked into degree programs are only hosted by Esalen; the credit goes towards degrees from Chapman University, which is WASC'ed [44], the Santa Barbara Graduate Institute, which is WASC'ed [45], and Harvard Medical School, whose accreditation I didn't bother to check. CE programs do not require accreditation, only licensing-body approval. So, if we call Esalen an educational institution, its degree and certificate programs, however connected to the institution, are accredited, it therefore does not belong on this list. If we call it not an institution of higher learning because it only offers a certificate program in massage (which is not necessarily tertiary education anyway), then it didn't belong on this list in the first place. --Dynaflow babble 07:08, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
1) The institute is listed as a postsecondary institution with a govermental agency.[46] 2) It is not accredited.
Also do you know why that governmental agency exists in relation to accreditation?
Please focus on this school. Whether or not other schools accept units from Esalen Institute does not mean anything about its accreditation. However, it does reinforce that Esalen Institute is what the state of California claims it is: a postsecondary educational institution. Arbustoo 18:49, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
Also on that same listing by "a governmental agency" (the Cal BPPVE) are several chapters of the American Red Cross [47][48][49][50][51][52] and Goodwill Industries [53][54][55][56][57][58][59][60][61][62], as well as Dog Lovers [63], Able-Disabled Advocacy, Inc. [64], ACE Diversified Capital, Inc. [65], US Pacific Financial Services, Inc. [66], Gateway Country Stores [67], the Asian American Drug Abuse Program [68], CORE Pacific Securities USA, LLC [69], Bay Area Immigrant and Refugee Services [70], the Union of Pan-Asian Communities [71], Wag My Tail, Inc. [72], the California Apartment Association [73], Century 21 Real Estate [74], London Properties, LTD [75], the Debra Stephenson Loan Processing Service Center [76], and some guy named Duane Gomer [77]. Their inclusion on the list indicates that California's definition of "post-secondary educational institution" is significantly broader than it would need to be to use it as a criterion for this list.
If the only critera that you're using for Esalen is that they show up on that California list and they don't show up on the Federal listing you cite, then the breadth of the California list seems to render its ability to define what we would logically call an "institution of higher education" seriously into question. As per Esalen's catalog, they offer a certificate program in massage -- that's it. The program is accredited by the major authority entitled to accredit such programs, as per its database (linked above). For everything else relating to certificates, it seems to be simply a venue for other institutions, which are accredited, to hold their classes. All other things offered by the place are workshops and do not purport to be certificate-, degree-, or anything-else-granting classes, just professional workshops (which happen to be approved by the relevant authorities which regulate whether CE credit from such couses can "count" toward the requirements of the profession -- the strict definition of accreditation). It makes no sense to stridently assert that a place is "unaccredited" that doesn't need or even qualify for consideration for something like a WASC accreditation that would show up on the Federal database, because it is not actually a college, school or other strictly-defined educational institution. If anything, it is redundant in the extreme, and given the widespread understanding of "unaccredited educational institution" as a pejorative term, it makes even less sense to insist that Esalen stay on the list. --Dynaflow babble 19:51, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I find Dynaflow's arguments and evidence convincing; this institution does not belong on this list. --ElKevbo 21:46, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Having read through the above thread, I concur: Esalen Institute is not a seat of learning in an orthodox academic sense, and for that reason it does not belong on this list. — mholland (talk) 22:26, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
Another voice in agreement on this issue. The criteria for inclusion are specified on the article are so broad as to be meaningless. It would seem that in order to appear on this list two factors must be shown: that the institution grants degrees AND that it is not recognized by a recognized accrediting agency. If both cannot be shown and sourced using reliable sources, then there is no valid reason for inclusion here. The ordeal that User:Dynaflow had to endure is indicative of what happens when someone tries to impose their view based on the use of absence of evidence as a means of proof. Alansohn 01:47, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
"Recognized accrediting agency" needs to be defined. Are we going to stick with the Department of Education's list of recognized accreditors for the US? What about other countries? --ElKevbo 02:06, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
Agreed. The title of the article is List of unaccredited institutions of higher learning. Defining unaccredited ought to be one of the first things that should have been done. There seems to be a clearer definition for the U.S., but as this list is worldwide, the issue needs to be addressed. Alansohn 02:27, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

This list may need a major audit or restructuring. Specifically, as User:Arbustoo pointed out, "Schools don't need "accreditation" and this page is for unaccredited institutions. Accreditation or lack thereof does not mean a school is bad or good." In spite of this, the list is prefaced by a fairly substantial article on diploma mills and then, just before the main list is a long list of "characteristics of diploma mills." The list of institutions itself is mostly uncited and offers no explanation of why they are diploma mills unaccredited institutions. It seems that the big preamble on diploma mills would prejudice a casual reader, or even a fairly serious reader, into thinking that this was, in fact, a list of diploma mills.

This is not a list that can be added to lightly, and there is indeed "harm in keeping an unaccredited institution on the list that offers education courses" -- as much harm as there is in keeping an unsourced person on a hypothetical List of pornographers or List of convicted felons. At the very least, institutions affiliated with the education industry don't react well to being called diploma mills, even by implication (just look at the WP:OFFICE action that's had editing on Pacific Western University shut down for almost a year), and if an institution is added to this list, our asses, and thus Wikipedia's, need to be covered, and we need to be absolutely certain of what exactly a given institution is or is not. --Dynaflow babble 04:16, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

  • As currently constituted this article is in clear violation of Wikipedia's WP:NPOV policies. While a few small weasel-worded fig leaves are provided, the article inherently disparages every one of the articles listed as unaccredited institution as an illegitimate diploma mill. Yet, reliable and verifiable sources to prove this inherently negative claim are provided for only a small fraction of the schools being cited. Furthermore, no distinction is made between those schools that are essentially frauds, and those schools (especially newer schools) that are actively pursuing accreditation. As far as I'm concerned, this entire article needs to be gutted and reworked, starting with a clear definition of those schools to be included and removing all schools from the list that do not have proper sources documenting the fact that they are offering degrees without appropriate accreditation. Alansohn 04:35, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
I disagree with the statement. The article plainly states, "Institutions that appear on this list are those that grant post-secondary degrees but are not listed as accredited by a recognized accrediting agency." No where does it say that all schools listed are diploma mills. The definition is VERY clear. "Institutions that appear on this list are those that grant post-secondary degrees but are not listed as accredited by a recognized accrediting agency." I don't see how it could be made more clear? What weasel-worded fig leaves are you referring to? Regards, Bill Huffman 05:50, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
BTW, thank you for adding that wonderfully plain, accurate, and correct statement, "Institutions that appear on this list are those that grant post-secondary degrees but are not listed as accredited by a recognized accrediting agency." Regards, Bill Huffman 05:52, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

As I see it, there are two options for what must be done for this list (aside from deletion, which has apparently already been tried):

  • The long preamble that seems to indicate that the institutions listed are all diploma mills must be stripped out (this is, after all, a list) and replaced with a concice, non-weaselley definition of the exact criteria we're using to label an institution unaccredited. Small disclaimers hidden amidst the verbiage on schools with shadowy legality won't cut it. All institutions included on the list should have sources cited that confirm that they are what we say they are; otherwise we're potentially drifting precariously towards WP:LIBEL.
...or...
  • The long preamble about diploma mills and such stays, but we audit the list to make sure that only institutions that we can verify (to be compliant with WP:V, one of the three core content tenets) have been called diploma mills by outside sources stay on the list. Everything else should be rigorously stripped out. If we are actually going to maintain a potentially libelous list like that, all new additions should probably be proposed on the Talk page and vetted first for consensus before being added to the list.

We are playing with fire here and need to be very careful. --Dynaflow babble 05:57, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. We also need to be clear that the burden is on the individual adding a school to this list to show that it is 1) Unaccredited AND offering degrees; OR 2) Is documented as a diploma mill, all with reliable and verifiable sources in either case. The Esalen Institute debacle demonstrates the fallacy of demanding "proof" that a school doesn't belong here. Alansohn 06:06, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
To quickly answer User:Bill Huffman, if that sentence was the only thing appearing on this article besides the list, there would be no problem. However, the article carries a lot of other baggage, and some of it presents a definite problem when you get down into the legal and moral gravity of insinuating an institution is a diploma mill, particularly without backing it up with verifiable outside sources. Again, caution should rule the day on this one. --Dynaflow babble 06:19, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Arbitrary conversational break - a new standard proposed

Alansohn, read the title of the article: List of unaccredited institutions of higher learning. It is not a list of diploma mills. Arbustoo 02:03, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
I did read the title of the article. That's why I -- and others -- have been so bothered by the lengthy section on diploma mills and their characteristics. This section, and other references to diploma mills outside of quoted sources, have all been removed. That's one small step in the right direction. Alansohn 03:20, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I endorse the changes made. I was actually about to do them myself when I noticed on my watchlist that the changes had already been made. There is still much work to be done on this list, particularly in citing sources. Absence of disproof will not cut it as proof that an institution should be included on what is still a list that casts its subjects in a negative light. For the time being, I'll put up a fact-check template over the list itself and propose criteria for inclusion:

  1. An institution must be an institution of tertiary education purporting to offer academic degrees (e.g., Associates, Bachelors, Masters, Doctorates, etc.). Institutions offering exclusively programs which, though technically post-secondary and offering certificates, are not academic and thus not subject to academic accreditation (e.g., massage, toaster repair, underwater basket weaving, etc.) should not be included.
  2. An assertion of the credentialling organization expected to accredit such programs must be made, and it must be shown that the institution does not exist on their rolls (the only place where negative proof would be acceptable).
  3. A citable source to back up each of those assertions.

Is this an acceptable standard? --Dynaflow babble 03:45, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

  • Support - The suggestion provides an objective means to specify "unaccredited institutions of higher learning". We should also endeavor to distinguish between those schools -- especially new schools -- that are in the process of pursuing accreditation, and those that are not even making the effort. Alansohn 04:00, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Support. The problem here has been the OR approach of this list, where no sources were required to add schools, but sources were required to remove schools. The accreditation databases are not "accurate, current, or complete" according to the US Department of Education.[78]. The absence of a school from these databases is not sufficient to prove that the school is not accredited. That was shown with SAM up above. Require sourcing per WP:V, rather than OR database searching, and the problem goes away. --JJay 22:21, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Quibble - I disagree with the statement "An institution must be an institution of tertiary education purporting to offer academic degrees." It is necessary for the list to include (1) diploma mills, (2) legitimate schools pursuing accreditation, and (3) possibly-legitimate schools that have decided not to seek accreditation. The first group (diploma mills) will include some entities that are not really "institutions of tertiary education", but do purport to offer degrees. Change to "An institution must be an entity that is or purports to be an institution of tertiary education purporting to offer academic degrees."
I also disagree with "Institutions offering exclusively programs which, though technically post-secondary and offering certificates, are not academic and thus not subject to academic accreditation (e.g., massage, toaster repair, underwater basket weaving, etc.) should not be included." The definition of "academic" and "nonacademic" is not clear-cut, and the need for accreditation is an issue for many nonacademic topics. As it happens, there are recognized accrediting agencies that accredit schools of massage therapy and other nonacademic subjects.
I disagree with "2. An assertion of the credentialling organization expected to accredit such programs must be made, and it must be shown that the institution does not exist on their rolls (the only place where negative proof would be acceptable)." Some unaccredited institutions claim accreditation from bogus accreditation agencies. Being on the list of a bogus agency does not make the entity an accredited entity. Furthermore, not all "credentialing organizations" are accreditation agencies. For example, some religious institutions have "credentials" from a religious denomination; this is not the same as "accreditation." Also, some institutions have government licenses to operate that do not constitute accreditation.
Regarding "A citable source to back up each of those assertions": In many instances, an article once existed regarding an institution on the list, but the article was deleted because the institution was deemed "nonnotable", and the sources cited in the article were not added to this list. IMO, it would be far better to retain these articles. --orlady 05:38, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

This article, particularly in its previous state, seems to be dangerously close to investigative research rather than an encyclopedic article. I understand and applaud those who want to expose and document diploma mills and less-than-savory institutions but Wikipedia is *not* the place to do that. --ElKevbo 05:43, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

To address the quibble, here are my thoughts: If we limit the list to institutions granting academic degrees, we will be able to avoid overpopulating the list with the myriad schools of massage, etc., which lack accreditation. This is simply so that we won't bloat the list to a size so massive as to be useless. A new list of unaccredited schools of massage at a different location would be a legitimate fork from this article. When people think "institution of higher learning," they're usually thinking "college," so it's best if we keep the list limited to institutions that would fall into that class. Criterion #2 requests both an assertion of the institution's expected accreditor (which would accredit it if it was a legitimate school) and an assertion that the institution has not been accredited by said accreditor. Criterion #3 is absolutely necessary per the official Wikipedia policies of verifiability of information (WP:V) and no original research (WP:OR). The material we're working with at this article does not afford us the luxury of an "ignore all rules" situation when it comes to sourcing because, as I pointed out above, this is the kind of article that can drift very easily into territory covered by WP:LIBEL (also official policy on English Wikipedia).
The "academic" test is unworkable. You and I may think of institutions of higher learning as being predominantly academic, but many people have a broader view. "Career colleges," offering various degrees and certificates, are numerous. Here's a school of "funeral arts and sciences" that offers Associate's degrees and is accredited by both SACS (a regional accreditor) and a specialized accreditor. Your example of massage therapy is one of the programs offered by many career colleges, some accredited and some not (for example, here's a massage therapy program offered by an accredited institution of higher education. It is not reasonable to maintain a list of unaccredited "colleges" that teach history, while not also including unaccredited "colleges" offering programs in fields like funeral services and massage therapy.--orlady 14:45, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
This is how I envision the process working. Say Fred Bob's School of Invasive Dentistry in Centralia, Pennsylvania, offers DDS degrees (meeting criterion #1). You would expect it to be accredited by the American Dental Association. It is not (meeting criterion #2). Therefore, it would belong on this list, with an appropriate assertion that it would need to be accredited by the ADA, but does not appear on the ADA's list of accredited institutions (a footnote would probably work best for that in order to meet criterion #3). --Dynaflow babble 06:12, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
You are making the totally reasonable, but utterly inaccurate, assumption that there is one credentialing organization "expected" to accredit any institution. Look at Barber-Scotia College, a legitimate college which freely admits that it is not currently accredited. It is seeking accreditation from three different recognized U.S. accreditors: the American Academy for Liberal Education, the Accrediting Council for Independent Colleges and Schools, and the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools. (Of these, the last is the most respected, but the others are also recognized.) This career college claims accreditation from four agencies: Accrediting Commission of Career Schools and Colleges of Technology, The Accrediting Bureau of Health Education Schools, The Accrediting Council for Continuing Education and Training, and The Accrediting Council for Independent Colleges and Schools. There are even competing accreditors for Christian schools that lack regional accreditation, including Transnational Association of Christian Colleges and Schools and The Association for Biblical Higher Education. Outside the U.S., accreditation authority is generally more clear-cut, but issues arise with institutions operating in multiple countries.--orlady 14:45, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
That's exactly the kind of information that needs to be footnoted to allow readers to know the reason why an institution is on the list. Basically, as per the extremely tedious Esalen Institute conversation above, we want to both keep institutions which are not actually schools from being Catch-22'ed into permanent residence on the list while also avoiding just putting a name on the list without further comment and, in effect, saying, "This is an unaccredited institution of higher learning. Trust us." By setting some sort of more rigid criteria, we help the list stay on topic and also give ourselves a reliable way to test for errors of judgement, again, in contrast to the Esalen rigamarole. --Dynaflow babble 16:55, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Reply re Criterion 1: The title of our article is "List of unaccredited institutions of higher learning" - These are schools of 1) higher learning that are 2) not accredited. Wikipedia defines Higher Learning as a synonym of higher education, education provided by universities, vocational universities (community colleges, liberal arts colleges, and technical colleges, etc.) and other collegial institutions that award academic degrees, such as career colleges. If the school does not grant degrees, it's not an institution of higher learning, and it does not belong here, a la Esalen Institute. There are institutions of higher learning that are not accredited, and all unaccredited institutions of higher learning belong in this article, by definition. Some of these unaccredited schools are diploma mills. Information about a school's diploma mill status belongs at the Diploma mill article, not here. Presumably, all diploma mills are unaccredited institutions of higher learning; conversely, all unaccredited institutions of higher learning are NOT diploma mills, and it is abundantly clear that information regarding diploma mills does NOT belong in this article. Alansohn 20:39, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_unaccredited_institutions_of_higher_education/Archive_1&oldid=1136258751"