Talk:Warnborough College/Archive 3

Accreditation claim

I'm moving the following material here for discussion. I'm unable to find this claim on the Warnborough web site:

* List of unrecognized accreditation associations of higher learning (WCUK claims accreditation by an organisation on this list: the International Accreditation and Recognition Council.)

It will be good to research the ISO claim, which is currently the emphasis on their website. TimidGuy 15:12, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

The ISO standard is purely awarded for Administration performance, in this the Warnborough have managed to produce adequate admin processes to convince ISO Inspectors that their admin structure meets the standards required. ISO is not accreditation.Degreemill 10:45, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

ISO's own materials make a point of the fact that ISO certification is not accreditation, and strongly discourage use of the term "accreditation". ISO only uses the term "accreditation" to designate ISO certification bodies that are themselves authorized to grant ISO certification in specified business sectors. See p. 5 Warnborough is not authorized to grant ISO certification. Thus, its use of the term "accredited" in connection with its ISO certification is contrary to ISO's own policies and guidelines.

216.157.197.218 (talk) 16:22, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

The IARC accreditation claim isn't hard to find, just google for "Warnborough IARC" and you'll find several links from Warnborough domains. Here are some supporting the claim:

• http://www.warnborough.ac.uk/general/accreditation.aspx
• http://www.warnborough.ac.uk/advice/faq.aspx
• IARC site: http://www.iarcedu.com/directory.aspx

The statement should be restored in the article, with citation. ~Amatulić (talk) 16:28, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree. We can use the sentence that Orlady put in earlier. TimidGuy (talk) 17:44, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

That sentence said:

Additionally, Warnborough is listed as "recognized" by and a member of the [[International Accreditation and Recognition Council]] (IARC),<ref>[http://www.iarcedu.com/directory.aspx IARC Directory of members] (accessed January 25, 2008)</ref> which is [[List of unrecognized accreditation associations of higher learning|not a recognized education accreditation organization]]. (Displayed as Additionally, Warnborough is listed as "recognized" by and a member of the International Accreditation and Recognition Council (IARC),[2] which is not a recognized education accreditation organization.)

--Orlady (talk) 02:35, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I put it in, but then reverted back. Seems like we need a better source to discredit IARC, since Wikipedia isn't considered a reliable source. TimidGuy (talk) 11:31, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, Orlady. I didn't quite understand your edit summary. I do now see, though, that iARC lists both Warnborough Ireland and Warnborough UK. There is no stigma being associated with IARC. What I think we need to do is simply say that the Warnborough UK web site says that it's accredited by IARC and then note the information from the IARC web site that says that it's not a replacement for national accreditation but an adjunct to it. I don't see any point in using Wikipedia as a source here, especially since it represents IARC as not being a recognized accrediting institution -- something that IARC doesn't itself claim. TimidGuy (talk) 15:12, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Orlady, I hope you will respond here. I think that the current version is problematic. For one thing, IARC doesn't claim to be an accreditation association. It seems odd to say that it's not recognized for something it doesn't even claim. And again, in this context Wikipedia is being used as the source. Also, the problem isn't Warnborough's association with IARC, which is in itself commendable. The problem which I think you have identified, and which isn't made clear in the article, is that Warnborough is seemingly misrepresenting IARC as an accrediting body. We could fix this by using wording suggested above.

On a related note, maybe we should put ISO under a separate subhead, since it too is not an accrediting body. In addition to the Accreditation subhead, we could maybe add a subhead that says "ISO certification." TimidGuy (talk) 15:14, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Sources

I still haven't been able to search Lexis/Nexis. I did try a number of other indexes. EBSCO turned up a few articles related to a situation in which a Warnborough degree was not being accepted in Australia. But there just hasn't been much written about Warnborough. We really need a source about Warnborough 1973-95 and a source that talks about Warnborough 1997-present in a general way. The BBC program is problematic because it's sensationalized and has factual errors. And it's not that recent. Will keep looking. And at some point soon we can check to see about using the database for information about Warnborough registrations. TimidGuy 11:33, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

The history period betwen 1973 and 1995 is fairly vague, they had an office in Seattle for student recruitment, which I think was prety successful. Mainly because they have attached the title 'Oxford'. This led to the claim of misrepresentation which was confirmd by Oxfrd University.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C06E4D71239F93BA35753C1A963958260&n=Top/Reference/Times%20Topics/Organizations/O/Oxford%20University

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=990CE7DB1F3AF934A35753C1A963958260&n=Top/Reference/Times%20Topics/Organizations/O/Oxford%20University

which leads to http://www.waucglobalaccreditation.org/

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9F04E1DC1239F934A35753C1A963958260&n=Top/Reference/Times%20Topics/Organizations/O/Oxford%20University

Warnborough College Seattle. Small office for student recruitment?

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=990CEFDA1F3AF934A35753C1A963958260&n=Top/Reference/Times%20Topics/Organizations/O/Oxford%20University

Duped by Warnborough

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=990CE1D91531F931A35753C1A963958260&n=Top/Reference/Times%20Topics/Organizations/O/Oxford%20University

After 1995 they downsized to an office in London and oeprated as follows Warnborough College, Friars House, SE1 8HB London, England.

Subsequently John Bear visited the 'one room office' in London and was informed the the Warnborugh University Page 223 refers http://books.google.com/books?id=k67XC_7y5xEC&pg=PA223&lpg=PA223&dq=julian+ng+warnborough&source=web&ots=PSW-guUmat&sig=GklIXHvKHHcjWQDRR56Q18gv8o4#PPA223,M1

Likewise http://chronicle.com/jobs/2000/10/2000101301c.htm quote... And Warnborough University has a lovely Web site and an .edu address, which is supposed to be reassuring, but I went there two years ago and found that it was a one-room office in London with no degree-granting authority." (Julian Ng, vice president for administration at Warnborough, took issue with Mr. Bear's characterization. Mr. Ng said that the university had other facilities in London and that its degree-granting authority came from its charter, which was issued in Ireland. However, the United Kingdom's education department does not recognize the university.)

I think this episode should be added in the timeline as the London address is where the main players decamped prior to moving to CanterburyDegreemill 12:15, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Degreemill. I'm fairly familiar with these sources and had added a couple to the article. What would be nice to have would be something prior to 1995, when Warnborough exclusively offered opportunities to study abroad and was apparently quite successful at that, with many satisfied students. It only seems fair to include that -- since it comprises a substantial part of Warnborough's history. All I've found so far is a mention in the NY Times in an article about opportunities to take summer school abroad. TimidGuy 15:04, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I am sure that they did have quite a few satisfied students in the early days and according to this http://www.ed-oha.org/cases/1995-164st.html they did have accreditation of which I quote "During the course of the hearing, Warnborough did not dispute the fact that it is not currently authorized to issue degrees in Great Britain, although it did present some evidence to the effect that it had previously been authorized by the District of Columbia to confer such degrees between 1988 and 1991. ( http://www.k12.dc.us/dcsea/certification/ ) Although apparently conceding that it is not currently authorized to grant degrees, College's counsel, at the hearing, attempted to explain that the College's renewal Application for Institutional Eligibility, dated June 13, 1994, which claimed that the college issued degrees in graduate, bachelor, and associate degree programs, was not misleading. He pointed to a note on the application which referred to an attachment which stated that such degrees were actually awarded by Greenwich College, ( possibly http://www.greenwichcollege.co.uk/ )with which the College had an agreement."

So that looks like they did manage to get some accreditation but also managed to lose it. you have also remember that in the early days there was no internet and so 'degree mill type scam' news did not travel as fast. Also as we are dealing with 1973 - 1995 then archived material is going to be somewhat lacking on the internet.

I think it is better to create a timeline of all events up to date, take it as granted that up to 1994-1995 they did not have too many problems until the misrepresentation case whereupon everything imploded as Oxford University etc., woke up, leading to the slow process in USA, UK, Ireland and Australia to close off avenues nationally for the Warnborough College - University and then College again.

I also think that students nowadays are a bit more careful about taking up degree courses and that the internet has had the effect of givng those students enough knowledge to opt to follow a degree course with a proper institution with accreditation or a charter.Degreemill 16:23, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

• • Here is what I regard as the "big picture" re Warborough in its various incarnations. I recognize that much of this is not stuff that can go in a Wikipedia article, because it won't show up in news articles or journals. In 1973 the Tempest-Moggs start up Warnborough House College in a residential area of North Oxford, and pitch the idea of a study abroad program in Oxford to college an university administrators in the US. The colleges then themselves recruit students to check out the program for them. Warnborough arranges for moonlighting dons and grad students to hold tutorials, and starts buying up/renting other houses in the neighborhood to house the students. So long as the colleges accept the credits when the students return to the US, everything is fine. Well - not quite fine. Two problems: First, Warnborough is quite fuzzy about what it really is, and a few colleges, after evaluating the reports back from the initial students, see a significant gap between the representations and reality: i.e. no full time faculty, no library, classroom facilities or lectures, no connection to Oxford University, not a real degree-granting college or university etc... They approve the transfer of credits for the original students (they have little choice in the matter as they were the ones, not the students, who decided to participate in the program sight unseen) but quietly, and privately decide that they will not approve further study abroad at Warnborough. None of this is going to show up in public reports, because the colleges themselves are embarassed to have been duped. Second, the idea of turning a quiet, residential neighborhood into student housing garners more than a little opposition in the neighborhood. As an aside, quite a bit of the opposition seemed rooted in prejuduce: "How dare those Australian sheep farmers move into our neighborhood..." More seriously, but for the claim to be a college, the conversion of these residential properties into the equivalent of rental flats or rooming houses would not have been permitted under local zoning and land use laws. A lot of the locals are convinced at the time that the college is basically a front for an improper real estate investment venture seeking to circumvent those laws.

But, other US colleges decide that they will continue to approve Warnborough credits for transfer and Warnborough manages to expand. It does so aggressively The Tempest Moggs set up a holding company to purchase the Boars Hill properties and Warnborough relocates there in 1976. It creates a dizzying array of subsidiaries and affiliates all around the world. Sometime thereafter, it starts offering not just "study abroad", but unaccredited graduate degrees. It opens a campus in Australia for a similar study abroad program in the mid 1980's. With pretenses of being a real college, it starts attracting negative attention, including the BBC Radio-4 report questioning the rigor of its classes and the validity of its graduate degrees. Soon thereafter, it creates yet another affiliate corporation in Washington DC, and apparently manages to get, for a 3-year period from 1988 to 1991, authority to issue degrees in DC. The timing suggests that this was provisional or temporary authority that expired or lapsed and that renewal either wasn't sought or was denied. Throughout, Warnborough continues to mispresent its connection to Oxford University, and objections from the University become frequent and vocal. But, at least the old neighbors in the Warnborough Road area are happy that Warnborough and the Tempest Moggs have decamped to other quarters.

Things come to an abrupt end when Warnborough decides to start offering bachelors degrees, and tries to enroll US undergraduates for a four-year degree program, rather than just study abroad, again misrepresenting both its connection to Oxford University and its degree-granting authority. This triggers the abrupt withdrawal of the duped undergrads, complaints in Washington State and the investigation at the US DoE that result in findings that (i) Warnborough misrepresented its relationship to the University; (ii) Warnborough misrepresented that it had authority to grant degrees; and (iii) that Warnborough violated the refund policies of the DOE and its own refund policies, all resulting in termination of the eligibility of its students to participate in federally-financed student loans and grants.

Warnborough goes bankrupt, leaving numerous creditors around Oxford (and, presumably the world) but re-emerges within months with a new business model, offering bogus degrees by distance learning. Now the targeted market has shifted from students in the US principally to third-world students in Asia and Africa. The offerings have all the classic marks of a degree mill, including the open willingness to substitute "live experience" for academic credit. Eventually, it again starts opening "campuses", including in Canterbury and London, but also in various locations in SE Asia, and arranging "affiliations" with various organizations of questionable provenance and other unaccredited educational institutions. It again gets into trouble with government authorities in the UK and Ireland who object to the unauthorized use of the term "university" in the name, and garners more negative media attention over the offering of unaccrdited degrees and questionable courses. And in a repeat performance of the mispresentation of the connections to Oxford, it garners its most recent negative publicity over giving the false impression that it is connected with All Hallows.

What we have here is a consistent pattern of misrepresentation for more than 35 years by the same people operating under a dizzying shell-game of corporations around the world. There is undoubtedly some educational value in at least some of the programs they have provided over that period. The problem is that what they are offering, and what they are providing, are two vastly different things.

216.157.197.218 (talk) 15:51, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Oregon citations

Note: Before recent edits, had two citations to the Oregon Office of Degree Authorization. One was the current list of unaccredited schools, while the other was an archived list from 2005 containing the following text regarding Warnborough College: "Not a degree-granting institution. Appearance on UK registry of training providers does not confer or represent authorization to issue degrees." Regarding Warnborough University, it said: "ODA has no evidence that this is a genuine Irish postsecondary institution. Accordingly, its degrees are considered invalid for use in Oregon." Similar information appears on the current list, but I don't want to forget this history, which may be useful at some future time. --Orlady (talk) 21:39, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Um, just today I came across this article, added the archive cite, then merged it with ODA's list of unaccredited schools when I noticed they were similar. If you want to revert my edits, I don't mind. I wasn't aware of previous edits to mine though. -Amatulic (talk) 22:06, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Happy New Year each. I may have been the cause of the ODA update, mainly because I worked myself up into a frenzy causing me to write lots of emails to make certain authorities aware of the Warnboroughs' current siutation. I do understand that Wikipedia has to have unbiased and cited articles but I feel these guys in Canterbury UK do more damage than even we can imagine, and that the authorities seem to turn an almost blind eye. The reason being is that they have been in existence prior to certain laws and statutes and therefore almost untouchable. An examples is the domain registry for edu names, any organisation registered prior to a certain which I think is 1995 then despite their (Warnborough) being unaccredited, unrecognised and unable to legally issue degrees in UK or Ireland, they are still legally entitled to hold the edu domain name. Ergo they have the facade of being legitimate by default.Degreemill (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 12:51, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the sentence recently added, it may be redundant. The article already said that Warnborough isn't a chartered university in the UK, which means that it's not recognized by the UK education officials. Regarding the Oregon citations, I would be inclined to agree with the edit and to only reference the current web site, given that the situation of the institutions listed may change. A good compromise regarding the latter, is, as Orlady had done, to note the historical info here. TimidGuy (talk) 15:58, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

IARC

Hi, Orlady. What's the point of adding IARC? It seems kind of odd to say that IARC lists Warnborough and then to say that IARC is bogus. Seems like this would only be relevant if Warnborough was claiming IARC as a credential. Are they? Otherwise, it seems pointless. What do you think? TimidGuy (talk) 21:21, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

The IARC website that lists the two Warnborough Colleges as members is one of the few independent sources of current information cited in the article. I thought that was a good thing. Far be it from me to be able to explain why Warnborough doesn't advertise its membership in this organization, but this is an article about Warnborough, not just about information that Warnborough chooses to disseminate about itself. --Orlady (talk) 22:32, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Maybe they realized that IARC wasn't credible and chose not to use this credential -- especially now that they're apparently intent on becoming a chartered Irish university. TimidGuy (talk) 12:44, 26 January 2008 (UTC) It seems like the main this is to state clearly that neither institution is chartered, and seems like the article does that. TimidGuy (talk) 12:46, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Redundant

Hi, Orlady. Some nice changes. I'm glad you sourced the accreditation application to the Irish Independent article -- something I'd been planning to do. Also, nice cleanup by Djegan.

It seems, though, that the article now says four times that Warnborough isn't accredited. I think that's a bit of overkill. Also, I don't think we should have the quote. And why quote one side but then not quote the refutation? TimidGuy (talk) 12:56, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Telling a complete and accurate story about this institution is not a matter of giving "equal time" to positive and negative viewpoints.

The somewhat mealy-mouthed statement "Warnborough does not currently have the educational accreditation necessary to be a chartered university in Ireland" is not nearly as informative (or factual) as "Warnborough courses are not recognised by Ireland's Department of Education, HETAC, or the National Qualifications Authority of Ireland (NQAI)." Furthermore, I believe that unique information value is added by the sourced quotation from a NQAI official who said: "Warnborough College is not a recognised higher education institution or awarding body. The qualifications on offer are effectively worthless." That's trimmed down from what was in the Irish Independent article, but I believe it would be irresponsible for the article to quote the second part of that without including the first part (which you may see as redundant) to provide context for his opinion.

You may notice that I removed the statement that All Hallows had cancelled the rental contract because Warnborough is "not chartered". I did not find that argument in the article, but did find a more complicated story about the misrepresentation of the relationship, plus the nonjudgmental statement about "no involvement of any kind." To correctly represent the situation, I felt it was important to provide that detail.

Thanks to your efforts, I believe the article gives Warnborough ample "benefit of the doubt" throughout.

--Orlady (talk) 15:16, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

As for "quoting the refutation", I think there would be value in adding a quotation from Dr Gabriel Byrne, the member of the adjunct faculty at the Smurfit Business School in UCD who has been a consultant for Warnborough in Ireland. However, given the nature of his comments, they belong in a discussion of Warnborough's academic program, not in a discussion of accreditation. Since there's not section on academics, there was no convenient place to insert his comments. --Orlady (talk) 15:22, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I have no complaint regarding the way you reworded the sentence that you noted above; nice job.

Here's the redundancy:

• 1. Warnborough does not currently have the educational accreditation necessary to be a chartered university in Ireland[12] or the U.K.[13],
• 2. and does not offer recognized Irish or British degrees.[14]
• 3. Warnborough courses are not recognised by Ireland's Department of Education, HETAC, or the National Qualifications Authority of Ireland (NQAI).
• 4. In February 2008, Sean O'Foghlu, chief executive of NQAI told the Irish Independent: "Warnborough College is not a recognised higher education institution or awarding body.

It says four times that Warnborough isn't accredited. I think a first step would be to merge points 1-4. I would do that by merging point 3 into points 1 & 2 and deleting the quote. If we can agree on this, then we can discuss the quote about "worthless degree." TimidGuy (talk) 16:12, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

That's not redundancy, that's standard paragraph writing (as I was taught in the various schools I attended), with a topic sentence followed by additional details. Here's how I "diagram" the paragraph:

• Topic sentence of paragraph, introducing and summarizing the points to follow:

• Warnborough does not currently have the educational accreditation necessary to be a chartered university in Ireland or the U.K., and does not offer recognized Irish or British degrees.

• Additional details about status in Ireland (amplifying upon topic sentence):

• Warnborough has applied for recognition in Ireland through the Higher Education and Training Awards Council (HETAC).
• However, Warnborough courses are not recognised by Ireland's Department of Education, HETAC, or the National Qualifications Authority of Ireland (NQAI). In February 2008, Sean O'Foghlu, chief executive of NQAI told the Irish Independent: "Warnborough College is not a recognised higher education institution or awarding body. The qualifications on offer are effectively worthless."

• Ideally, at this point there would also be some specific details about the approval situation in the U.K.
• Additional details about how the school's status affects its acceptance around the world (these points don't completely fit in this paragraph, but I don't think they should be moved to a separate paragraph):

• Warnborough degrees are not accepted in Texas, Oregon, or Australia.
• According to the Warnborough web site, over 200 colleges and universities have accepted transfer credit from Warnborough College.

IMO, the paragraph should be expanded (particularly by adding sourced details about the situation in the U.K.) rather than compressed. Compressing all of the information into the topic sentence (and making the reader go to references to try to find out what the article is talking about) would eviscerate the paragraph.

--Orlady (talk) 17:58, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Maybe it's hard for you to imagine what I have in mind. I'll go ahead and edit it. TimidGuy (talk) 18:40, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I made some edits. I feel like i made no substantial change in the accreditation paragraph but was able to eliminate redundancy. I deleted material in the previous paragraph that I hadn't yet discussed here. In my mind, it wasn't appropriate encyclopedia style -- which is to find a source and summarize the point it makes. It's not like journalism, where you make the point and then back it up with a quote. I think your summary of the reason why All Hallows won't renew is fine. TimidGuy (talk) 20:55, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I like the way you revised the beginning of the accreditation paragraph. Nice wording! --Orlady (talk) 00:43, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

However, I restored the two items that you removed:

• Changing "The qualifications on offer are effectively worthless" to "[Warnborough] qualifications on offer are effectively worthless" garbled the sentence. An ungarbled version with the same meaning would say "The qualifications on offer [by Warnborough] are effectively worthless." However, that still takes the statement out of context. Out of context, is it unclear why they are "worthless." With the previous sentence included, it is clear that he was saying only that the lack of accreditation makes the qualification "effectively worthless"; he was not making any statement about the quality of the education.
• I also restored the statement in the previous paragraph, in which the vice president of All Hallows said that his institution had "no involvement of any kind in the academic programmes or arrangements of Warnborough College" and had asked Warnborough to remove from its website all images of All Hallows and references to plans for seminars and graduation ceremonies at the All Hallows campus. As I stated in comments above, I felt that in order to correctly represent the situation, it was important to provide that detail about the alleged misrepresentation of the relationship, plus the nonjudgmental statement about "no involvement of any kind."

--Orlady (talk) 00:43, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Orlady. Glad you liked the change.

I have a number of concerns about the quotes, related to policy and to encyclopedia style. But since it could take days or weeks to work through the issues, do an RfC, mediation, etc., maybe we can short circuit the process. I think I can write a few sentences that will address issues related to the "worthless" quote and that I think will satisfy both our concerns. Hope to do that tomorrow. TimidGuy (talk) 20:38, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Yikes -- I thought we were having an amicable discussion and here you are discussing RfC and mediation! Let's not go there. IMHO, the most useful thing that could be done right now would be to add a section about the university's educational program(s) (what a novel thing to discuss in an article about an educational institution, eh?), including (but not limited to) information about the comments of Dr Gabriel Byrne, the member of the adjunct faculty at the Smurfit Business School in UCD who has been a consultant for Warnborough in Ireland. Since you seem to have a soft spot in your heart for Warnborough, I've been assuming that you could find some useful information sources about academic offerings, faculty, etc. --Orlady (talk) 20:46, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Hmm... After writing that, I visited the Warnborough websites. They have extensive information about the educational program, faculty, etc. -- information I had not seen before. There's plenty of material to use in expanding the article. I must tell you, though, that warning sirens go off in my head when I see a school offer a Ph.D. in Metaphysics. [1] --Orlady (talk) 20:58, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Orlady. What I meant to say is that I'd like to avoid long explanations of what I see are breeches of policy and encyclopedia style (and possibly any dispute resolution) by doing as I did yesterday and simply writing something that I hope will satisfy both of us. I don't have a special regard for Warnborough but do have a sense of fairness. Will give it a go tomorrow. Good idea about adding content. And I do intend to address your point below. TimidGuy (talk) 21:59, 24 February 2008 (UTC)