Template talk:Unaccredited

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contact information for states in question[edit]

Instead of relying on those who are not licensed to render legal advice or to adequately interpret state legislation, inquirers should directly contact the relevant state higher education authority to determine the acceptance of an unaccredited but state-approved/licensed degree from another state. Each state's laws contain nuances, exceptions and restrictions related to the acceptance of such degrees.

The direct contact details for the states in question are as follows (the law citations are posted in their own section below):

North Dakota Education Standards and Practices Board
2718 Gateway Avenue
Suite 303
Bismarck, ND 58503-0585
(701) 328-9641 - Phone
(701) 328-9647 - Fax
espbinfo@nd.gov
Oregon Office of Degree Authorization
1500 Valley River Drive
Suite 100
Eugene, OR 97401
(541) 687-7452
http://www.osac.state.or.us/oda
New Jersey Commission on Higher Education
PO Box 542
Trenton, NJ 08625-0542
(609)-292-4310
http://www.state.nj.us/highereducation/
Indiana Commission on Proprietary Education
302 W Washington Street, Room E201
Indianapolis, IN 46204
(317)-232-1320
http://www.in.gov/cope/
Florida Department of Education
Office of the Commissioner
Turlington Building, Suite 1514
325 West Gaines Street
Tallahassee, Florida 32399
(850) 245-0505
http://www.fldoe.org
Washington Higher Education Coordinating Board
917 Lakeridge Way
P.O. Box 43430
Olympia, WA 98504-3430
(360)753-7800
http://www.hecb.wa.gov

Sourcing[edit]

For the note that unaccredited degrees MAY be illegal in some areas, 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."[1] CaliEd 19:55, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the law: HB 2507 - 2005-06 :Prohibiting false or misleading college degrees.[2] (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 accreditationor (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.

"Board" of course refers to the Washington Board of education. CaliEd 20:16, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I just spoke with Karen Oelschlager, a Degree Authorization representative at the Washington Higher Education Coordinating Board (360.753.7869). She told me that while she could not render legal advice (of course), the intent of the Washington legislature was not exclude degrees approved by other states, but simply to prevent diploma mills from operating within the state of Washington without state authorization or accreditation. The law is not intended to make Washington an island by excluding the approval of other states; it simply omits mentioning other states because it was irrelevant to its original purpose. It is a matter of how the law is approached and interpreted, certainly. Your thoughts please. --Jreichard 20:28, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OR is not allowed as a sourcing method. The above Washington law is clear, a school must be recognized there to be acceptable. Unaccredited degrees are not acceptable in Oregon, North Dakota, New Jersey. Unaccredited doctorates are illegal in Indiana. The following is quoted from Oregon State Office of Degree Authorization:

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.[3]

CaliEd 21:59, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you; this is why I am advocating that we rephrase the template as stated above. I think that fraud should be dealt with harshly and illegitimate degrees should be prosecuted. However, I disagree that if a degree is not yet accredited that it is automatically illegitimate. How then will any new school operate? A new school cannot achieve accreditation instantaneously. Accreditation requires a history of operation, graduates, etc. To classify as degree as "fake" because it is unaccredited is not a valid designation unless the school is operating illegally (not authorized or approved by a particular state authority). Many fine unaccredited schools are on the pathway to accreditation. The citations above are not battling degrees that are approved by other state degree authorization boards; they are battling illegitimate diploma mills with no state authorization or approval that are issuing illegal, worthless degrees, an effort which I wholeheartedly, unquestionably support.--Jreichard 22:02, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
CaliEd, please read this reference on the Oregon page [4]. This clearly illustrates my point:
May a degree issued by a state-approved but unaccredited school in another state be used in the private sector in Oregon?
Yes, provided that the user discloses on all resumes, letterhead, business cards or web sites that the degree is unaccredited and unapproved by ODA.
Please comment.--Jreichard 22:22, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it can, IF (see source:[5]): "Process for approval under ORS 348.609(d). A claimant of an unaccredited U.S. degree may submit to the Office information indicating that the school conferring the degree has the legal authority to issue degrees in another state and could reasonably be considered for approval in Oregon under OAR 583-030." It must be approved by the ODA first! Is your school approved by the ODA? (provide source) CaliEd 20:30, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What this demonstrates, however, is that there are most certainly exceptions to the blanket statements and the exceptions deserve equal documentation as the restrictions. The source above says that the "a claimant of an unaccredited U.S. degree may submit". Each individual student must do this in order for the degree to recognizable in Oregon. This is why each student or prospective student must contact the individual state. I have, however, just put a call into the ODA, as we will gladly submit our California State Approval documentation to the ODA if there is a pathway to gain institutional recognition in the state. We are happy to comply with every law, CaliEd, and to openly inform propspective students. --Jreichard 20:42, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, there can be exceptions. "As such, its degrees may not be acceptable to employers or other institutions, and use of degree titles may be restricted or illegal in some jurisdictions." That is exactly what the page states! And the very sentence that was removed from your school's article page! CaliEd 20:57, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This template links to school accreditation, and that is the place for this debate. Most of the below is in both places. Just zis Guy you know? 21:00, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed change of tag[edit]

It may be appropriate to modify the tag to read as:

... is an institution operating in the United States that is not accredited by an accrediting agency recognized by the Council for Higher Education Accreditation. As such, its degrees may not be acceptable to employers or other institutions, and use of degree titles may be restricted or illegal in some states unless approved by the state licensing agency[1].

This accomplishes two things: 1) It better clarifies the US-centricity of the statement and 2) It reads just as the USDE disclaimer reads.--Jreichard 21:14, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I gave you a government source that states unaccredited degrees are illegal in four states, and the Washington law. The template is fine. CaliEd 22:05, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Did you read the proposed change? The word "illegal" is not removed in my proposition.--Jreichard 22:12, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There are unaccredited schools outside the US, and use of unaccredited degrees from US schools is illegal in some jurisdictions outside the US, so I think it's best to leave it generic as-is. Just zis Guy you know? 22:13, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Then perhaps we need to remove the word "states" as that is certainly US-centric.--Jreichard 22:17, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe local laws approve them or maybe not? However, states is a mainly used in a US context. This unaccredited template is, as wikipedia also is, used internationally. It is fine. CaliEd 22:55, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Um, it says jurisdictions, which is also suitably generic. Just zis Guy you know? 17:52, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The template reads "... is not accredited by any recognised accreditation body". Who, exactly, is doing the recognising? --Drichardson 23:27, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

According to the government's laws. Such as:

CaliEd 00:44, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is quite clear there is someone hairsplitting, but I everyone here is in agreement. C56C 19:06, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

North Dakota does not accept unaccredited degrees[edit]

Source: [6] (section 15-20.4-15.)

15-20.4-15. Unlawful to issue, manufacture, or use false academic degrees - Penalty. 1. It is unlawful for a person to knowingly issue or manufacture a false academic degree. A person that violates this subsection is guilty of a class C felony. 2. a. It is unlawful for an individual to knowingly use or claim to have a false academic degree: (1) To obtain employment; (2) To obtain a promotion or higher compensation in employment; (3) To obtain admission to an institution of higher learning; or (4) In connection with any business, trade, profession, or occupation. b. An individual who violates this subsection is guilty of a class A misdemeanor. 3. As used in this section, "false academic degree" means a document such as a degree or certification of completion of a degree, coursework, or degree credit, including a transcript, that provides evidence or demonstrates completion of a course of instruction or coursework that results in the attainment of a rank or level of associate or higher which is issued by a person that is not a duly authorized institution of higher learning. 4. As used in this section, "duly authorized institution of higher learning" means an institution that: a. Has accreditation recognized by the United States secretary of education or has the foreign equivalent of such accreditation; b. Has an authorization to operate under this chapter; c. Operates in this state and is exempt from this chapter under section 15-20.4-02; d. Does not operate in this state and is: (1) Licensed by the appropriate state agency; and (2) An active applicant for accreditation by an accrediting body recognized by the United States secretary of education; or e. Has been found by the state board for career and technical education to meet standards of academic quality comparable to those of an institution located in Page No. 6 the United States that has accreditation recognized by the United States secretary of education to offer degrees of the type and level claimed.

I'll fine more links later. CaliEd 22:50, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I will call the North Dakota Educational Practices Board tomorrow for further clarification. I believe you are misreading these laws. They are designed to protect consumers against diploma mills, not state-approved institutions.--Jreichard 23:09, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please do. And when you do, will you modify Vision's webpage to let students and prospective students know that their degrees might be meaningless in other parts of the country? CaliEd 23:15, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Of course. For years while we maintained religious exemption (in pursuit of State Approval), we disclosed all state laws to the students on our website as the rejection of religious exempt degrees is much more explicit. Whatever the clear interpretation of the law in ND is, we will most certainly comply. We have no problem even letting our students know that the degrees are not acceptable for public employment in Oregon, for instance, but are acceptable for private, religious employment. You will find that we strive that to demonstrate integrity because we are quite aware of the countless diploma mills out there (especially in religious circles). In fact, the school from which VIU started is accredited in New South Wales, Australia, and we intend to follow suit in the USA. I will take this to our Academic Affairs Council after speaking with ND tomorrow. This is not about VIU in particular, but applies to all non-accredited but state-approved institutions. I appreciate your concern for high academic standards. --Jreichard 23:41, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I just spoke with Beverly Sandness at the North Dakota Education Standards and Practices Board (701) 328-9641. Again CaliEd, you have demonstrated a fundamental misunderstanding of the purposes of these laws. Unless you are a bar-admitted lawyer, I am making the assumption that you are making brash interpretations of the law. The law in North Dakota, according to Mrs. Sandness, was not designed to proclude other State-Approved and duly licensed programs, but to prevent degree fraud from illegal, unlicensed diploma mills. The other purpose of the law is to prevent individuals with unaccredited degrees to attempt to gain certification, employment, or promotion in the North Dakota public school system. And of course, no institution is ever obligated to accept transfer credit from any other institution, especially if the institution is non-accredited. This makes perfect sense. She said that use of a degree from a California, for instance, State-Approved institution would NOT be a "class C felony" in North Dakota, unless it was misrepresented to attempt to gain government employment. She said most explicitly that if an individual earns a degree from a non-accredited but California State-Approved institution, in let's say, Religious Studies, that individual may use that degree in North Dakota without a problem. Please CaliEd, before you continue to interpret legal statutes, please confirm your legal credentials or leave the interpretation up to the experts who work for each individual state. You have again been demonstrated to be incorrect. Does this not demonstrate that this topic deserves much more discussion and debate? --Jreichard 17:04, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The law above is clear. While I'm sure they don't want to discriminate against acceptable schools, clearly your school does not fit the the criteria or accredited or seeking accreditation. Please note: WP:OR does not allow the type of claims you posted above, now you call wikipedia for this too, but it is clear as well. I don't know the context of what Ms. Sandness said, her actual words, or heard the whole conversation. If you have a better source that the state law I posted above then please share it.
And thanks for insulting me, ("please confirm your legal credentials or leave the interpretation up to the experts who work for each individual state. You have again been demonstrated to be incorrect.") though I can't say I am surpised that someone connected with an unaccredited "school" does that. The template is fine, the only problem I see is with your school existing fot 16 years and not meeting basic requirements. And for the record, I am well aware about accredited schools and education. CaliEd 19:04, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
CaliEd, again, I'm afraid you are sorely mistaken. Do you understand the difference between "basic requirements" and "accreditation"? And for the record, indeed we are seeking accreditation and have been for some time. Using the WP:OR argument is simply reactionary. I took the time to actually call these state offices and speak with the individuals who deal with these laws on a daily basis. My conversation can easily be verified, as anyone can simply call the individual again and ask the same questions. I provided the telephone number for each individual.
Concerning my statement "please confirm your legal credentials", I do not think it was out of the question. You are suggesting to everyone in the discussion and to the entire academic community that your interpretation of those laws is superior to the interpretation of the individuals who work for the degree authorization boards of the states in question. Please see the legitimacy of my argument, especially if your are not licensed to practice law (nor am I). Why not allow anyone to freely inquire directly with the source rather than rely on a third-party interpretation?
This is not about personally defending the institution I represent, but for all legitimate unaccredited schools that are on the pathway to accreditation. The argument I am making is that your interpretation of those laws is thoroughly subjective. I recommend that on this page, we simply place the contact information for each state you are citing so that prospective students or any inquirer may directly contact the state in question and ask the authorities directly, for themselves, what the recognition of such a degree would be rather than relying on your interpretation of law, or mine or anyone else who is not a lawyer or state employee.
To demonstrate even further (in spite of your attacks) the integrity of our institution, I will immediately recommend to the Academic Affairs Council that we place a disclaimer on our website regarding these states and provide students with all of the necessary contact information so that they may call each individual state office themselves for verification. None of us have a flawless understanding of the original purpose, present interpretation, or enforcement of the laws you are citing except for the state officials themselves. Please comment. --Jreichard 19:26, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The point here is you were told by a quote from the ODA (an Oregon state agency) that:

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.[7]

You questioned that government source so I gave you North Dakota Law, New Jersey Law, Washington Law, Oregon Law. You responded that I am not a lawyer (and you are correct), and that you personally talked to people who back up your take and not the explict, clear law. I don't know how you portrayed you "school" in those conversations, and I don't care about those conversations. I want a hard fact, a citation, that excuses your school from the vigors of higher education. The laws I cited are very clear. CaliEd 20:18, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You are selectively reading the Oregon page. For the fourth time I will quote this to you. Please read the fifth question down on the FAQ page provided by ODA.
May a degree issued by a state-approved but unaccredited school in another state be used in the private sector in Oregon?
Yes, provided that the user discloses on all resumes, letterhead, business cards or web sites that the degree is unaccredited and unapproved by ODA.

You are selectively reading the Oregon page; First question on the FAQ page

"Why doesn’t ODA recognize degrees issued by unaccredited colleges approved by other states? Standards for approval vary widely from state to state, and many states allow exceptions or have low standards or none at all. Colleges that want their degrees to be generally accepted outside their state of origin need to obtain accreditation from a federally recognized accreditor."[8] (NOTE: approved by other states). CaliEd 20:37, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am not questioning that there are restrictions in these states, but there are also exceptions. It is not enough to use broadbrush statements when there are protocol to be followed. Please stop insulting the institution and let's stick to the argument at hand. Again, neither of us are lawyers and the law is oviously not "clear and explicit" when its own authorities disagree with you. Please call them, CaliEd; speak to the same individuals I spoke to and ask them if an "unaccredited California state-approved degree is illegal" in their state. I have posted all of the contact information for each of these states above so that any honest inquirer can find out from the authorities, not from you, what the exceptions and restrictions of the law are. It is misleading to people when we only give them part of the truth without allowing them to freely inquire. This is not what Wikipedia is all about. If we need a lengthy page with all of the specifics, then so be it, but let's try to keep this conversation civil. We are not working against want another; I believe that we both want the truth to prevail.
Again, to demonstrate our integrity, I have lobbied the Academic Affairs Department to post a very honest statement, an act that most unaccredited schools would not do, on our website to disclose the information and encourage students to contact each state directly. It can be found here [9].--Jreichard 20:31, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the statement, thank you for explicitly addressing the issue on Vision International University's website. CaliEd 20:37, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Does this not demonstrate a certain level of integrity, CaliEd? There are many legitimately state-aprpoved non-accredited institution that are not attempting to deceive anyone. The only point I am making is that we need to disclose more than simply the restrictions, but what students need to consider for each state before applying to a state-approved, non-accredited institution. And, we need to draw a line of distinction between a an illegal, illegitimate diploma mill and a legally state-approved institution.--Jreichard 20:46, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
My concern here is the removal of the unaccredited template from your school's wikipedia article. [10] The removal of this one "As such, its degrees may not be acceptable to employers or other institutions, and use of degree titles may be restricted or illegal in some jurisdictions," which explains exactly what your new Vision page[11] says. "Some jurisdictions" may not accept it! CaliEd 20:51, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As you will notice, it was not I who removed the tag. I have never removed the tag from the article, but have attempted to have an ongoing debate regarding the subject. I hope this demonstrates my reasonableness after all! :-) --Jreichard 23:46, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

New Jersey does not accept unaccredited degrees[edit]

New Jersey basically has the same law as North Dakota. New Jersey Statutes & Regulations Regarding Academic Degrees [12]

A person shall not append to his name any letters in the same form designated by the Commission on Higher Education as entitled to the protection accorded to an academic degree unless the person has received from a duly authorized institution of higher education the degree or certificate for which the letters are registered. For the purposes of this section, a duly authorized institution of higher education means an in-State institution licensed by the Commission on Higher Education or an out-of-State institution licensed by the appropriate state agency and regionally accredited or seeking accreditation by the appropriate accrediting body recognized by the Council on Postsecondary Education or the United States Department of Education.

It is sections: L.1986,c.87,s.3; amended 1994,c.48,s.36. CaliEd 00:09, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Washington does not accept unaccredited degrees[edit]

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."[13]

Here is the law: HB 2507 - 2005-06 :Prohibiting false or misleading college degrees.[14] (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.

"Board" of course refers to the Washington Board of education. CaliEd 00:11, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I spoke with Karen Oelschlager, a Degree Authorization representative at the Washington Higher Education Coordinating Board (360.753.7869). She told me that while she could not render legal advice (of course), the intent of the Washington legislature was not exclude degrees approved by other states, but simply to prevent diploma mills from operating within the state of Washington without state authorization or accreditation. The law is not intended to make Washington an island by excluding the approval of other states; it simply omits mentioning other states because it was irrelevant to its original purpose. It is a matter of how the law is approached and interpreted, certainly. If you are questioning Mrs. Oelschlager, you are saying that your interpretation of her state's educational law is inferior to yours. --Jreichard 20:28, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
Once again, WP:AGF that you called, how do I know what you said, how do I know your clear bias didn't influence the discussion, how do I know that you disclosed all relevant data. Well, I don't. The laws posted above are very clear, and no second-hand WP:OR about one phone call to someone will convince me. Give me a source, you know, what you asked from me. CaliEd 20:21, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oregon does not accept unaccredited degrees[edit]

Oregon does not accept unaccredited degrees, unless it is approved by Oregon State Office of Degree Authorization. [15]

583-050-0014

Unaccredited Degrees

(1) Users of unaccredited degrees may use the degrees in the following ways.

(a) Unaccredited degrees that have achieved ODA approval under ORS 348.609(d) can be used without a disclaimer.

(b) Unaccredited degrees that have not achieved ODA approval under ORS 348.609(d) can only be used with a disclaimer.

(c) Degrees issued by degree mills are invalid for use, with or without a disclaimer.

(2) Process for approval under ORS 348.609(d). A claimant of an unaccredited U.S. degree may submit to the Office information indicating that the school conferring the degree has the legal authority to issue degrees in another state and could reasonably be considered for approval in Oregon under OAR 583-030.

(a) A reasonable possibility of approval can be demonstrated by submitting to ODA the appropriate review fee and sufficient evidence that the unaccredited institution could meet ODA academic standards under OAR 583-030 for authorization to operate in Oregon if it chose to make such an application.

(b) ODA may, upon its own motion, evaluate an unaccredited institution and determine whether it has a reasonable chance to meet Oregon authorization standards without a degree user making such a request.

(c) If a request for evaluation under this section is not made to ODA within 30 days of notification that an unaccredited degree is being used contrary to Oregon law, the degree user's right to such a review is waived and ODA may pursue appropriate enforcement action. Degree users may, within the first 30 days, request up to 30 additional days for the purpose of gathering material necessary to apply for an evaluation.

(3) A claimant of a non-U.S. degree issued by a degree supplier not accredited by a U.S. accreditor may submit to the Office information proving that the supplier issuing the degree has the following characteristics.

(a) The supplier is operating legally as a degree-granting institution in its host country.

(b) The host country has a postsecondary approval system equivalent to U.S. accreditation in that it applies qualitative measures by a neutral external party recognized in that role by the government.

(c) The supplier has been approved through the demonstrable application of appropriate standards by the host country's accreditor equivalent.

(d) All degrees issued by the supplier are legally valid for use and professional licensure within the host country.

Stat. Auth.: ORS 348.609 Stats. Implemented: ORS 348.603, 348.609, 348.992 & SB 1039 (2005 OL, Ch. 546) Hist.: ODA 2-1998, f. & cert. ef. 8-12-98; ODA 1-2001, f. & cert. ef. 6-27-01; ODA 3-2003, f. 10-29-03, cert. ef. 11-1-03; ODA 4-2004, f. & cert. ef. 5-14-04; ODA 3-2005, f. 9-27-05, cert. ef. 9-30-05; Renumbered from 583-050-0031, ODA 4-2005, f. & cert. ef. 10-18-05

Thus, if you have an unaccredited degree it must be approved by the ODA. CaliEd 00:20, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
CaliEd, please read this reference on the Oregon page [4]. This clearly illustrates my point:
May a degree issued by a state-approved but unaccredited school in another state be used in the private sector in Oregon?
Yes, provided that the user discloses on all resumes, letterhead, business cards or web sites that the degree is unaccredited and unapproved by ODA.
I have asked you to please comment.--Jreichard 22:22, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
Yes, it can, IF (you ignored the second bolded area): "Process for approval under ORS 348.609(d). A claimant of an unaccredited U.S. degree may submit to the Office information indicating that the school conferring the degree has the legal authority to issue degrees in another state and could reasonably be considered for approval in Oregon under OAR 583-030." It must be approved by the ODA first! Is your school approved by the ODA? (provide source) CaliEd 20:24, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Indiana does not accept unaccredited doctorates[edit]

Indiana does not accept unaccredited doctorates unless they have a religious nature and "clearly identify the religious character of the educational program." [16]

SECTION 1. IC 24-5-0.5-12 IS AMENDED TO READ AS FOLLOWS [EFFECTIVE UPON PASSAGE]: Sec. 12. (a) It is an incurable deceptive act for an individual, while soliciting or performing a consumer transaction, to claim, either orally or in writing, to possess a doctorate degree or use a title, a word, letters, an insignia, or an abbreviation associated with a doctorate degree, unless the individual: (1) has been awarded a doctorate degree from an institution that is: (A) accredited by a regional or professional accrediting agency recognized by the United States Department of Education or the Council on Postsecondary Accreditation; (B) a religious seminary, institute, college, or university whose certificates, diplomas, or degrees clearly identify the religious character of the educational program; or (C) operated and supported by a governmental agency

SECTION 1. IC 24-5-0.5-12 IS CaliEd 00:25, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Florida does not accept unaccredited doctorates[edit]

Florida, like Indiana, does not accept unaccredited doctorates unless they have a religious nature and "clearly identify the religious character of the educational program." The citation is: [17]

Title XLVI

CRIMES Chapter 817 FRAUDULENT PRACTICES

817.567 Making false claims of academic degree or title.--

(1) No person in the state may claim, either orally or in writing, to possess an academic degree, as defined in s. 1005.02, or the title associated with said degree, unless the person has, in fact, been awarded said degree from an institution that is:

(a) Accredited by a regional or professional accrediting agency recognized by the United States Department of Education or the Commission on Recognition of Postsecondary Accreditation;

(b) Provided, operated, and supported by a state government or any of its political subdivisions or by the Federal Government;

(c) A school, institute, college, or university chartered outside the United States, the academic degree from which has been validated by an accrediting agency approved by the United States Department of Education as equivalent to the baccalaureate or postbaccalaureate degree conferred by a regionally accredited college or university in the United States;

(d) Licensed by the Commission for Independent Education pursuant to ss. 1005.01-1005.38 or exempt from licensure pursuant to chapter 1005; or

(e) A religious seminary, institute, college, or university which offers only educational programs that prepare students for a religious vocation, career, occupation, profession, or lifework, and the nomenclature of whose certificates, diplomas, or degrees clearly identifies the religious character of the educational program.

(2) No person awarded a doctorate degree from an institution not listed in subsection (1) shall claim in the state, either orally or in writing, the title "dr." before the person's name or any mark, appellation, or series of letters, numbers, or words, such as, but not limited to, "Ph.D.," "Ed.D.," "D.N.," or "D.Th.," which signifies, purports, or is generally taken to signify satisfactory completion of the requirements of a doctorate degree, after the person's name.

(3)(a) A person who violates the provisions of subsection (1) or subsection (2) commits a misdemeanor of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083.

(b) In addition to any penalty imposed under paragraph (a), a violator shall be subject to any other penalty provided by law, including, but not limited to, suspension or revocation of the violator's license or certification to practice an occupation or profession.

CaliEd 00:30, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Texas does not accept unaccredited degrees[edit]

"LaSalle University of Louisiana was an institution that did offer degrees for less than college level work required. They basically were a fraudulent or substandard institution. In fact it was closed down by the federal government," David Linkletter of the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board said.

Borrer completed the Ph.D. through a distance education program by completing coursework online. For online degree programs there are no hard rules of regulation, except accreditation. In Texas, using an unaccredited degree is against the law.

"As of Sept. 1, 2005 it is a crime, a misdemeanor, to use a fraudulent or sub-standard degree to promote a business to seek employment or ask extra compensation," Linkletter said. [18]

Nevada does not accept unaccredited degrees[edit]

From a 2004 USA Today article:

Using a bogus degree to get a job or promotion is illegal only in Oregon, New Jersey, Indiana, Illinois, North Dakota and Nevada, where it is a misdemeanor mainly punishable by fines ranging from $350 to $2,500.[19]

Weasel Words[edit]

This template contains the following uncited weasel words: "use of degree titles may be restricted or illegal in some jurisdictions." Can someone improve it and show some cases where this is true? - JD — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jack Delay (talk • contribs)

See above. The laws of various states are cited. Arbusto 01:27, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Citations[edit]

Arbustoo wrote citations are all over the talk page, we don't need citations from twenty different states clouding up the template on numerous articles.

Unfortunately, we do need citations, although I agree we don't need twenty of them. I came here from one of the articles that transcluded this template. On that page were the claims that this template makes - such as "degree titles may be restricted or illegal in some jurisdictions". That is a jarring claim to make without support. My initial reaction was to edit in the "citation needed" tag on that page, but after realizing that it was a template, was forced to come here instead. If this claim is being included on many pages through transclusion, then all those pages need the citation and inserting them into the template is the most efficient way. I am happy to do the work of editing them in myself if you would prefer, but assume that the people who posted all these references here in talk would be able to pick which few were the best for inclusion in the template. - O^O 21:50, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Templates generally do not use citations. The citations are available for interested parties on this page. Do you know what this does to the flow of many articles? How do you want to remedy this problem?
Since you are concerned about citations, and the citations are listed above why not try to add them to the article instead of adding tags? Arbustoo 03:37, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, I'd be happy to add the citations to the template. Like I said, I was giving the opportunity for those more attached the the above citations to pick the ones they liked best. - O^O 03:57, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So a link to the US Department of Education means what for a non-accredited school outside of the US? It means what for someone who lives in Germany? This template is for schools outside of one geographic area too. For example, in Germany use of titles from non-accredited places are illegal. Feel free to visit template:Globalize. Arbustoo 07:54, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What's the problem?[edit]

This template is designed for use in articles on unaccredited schools in the US. I'm not aware of a problem with unaccredited school articles elsewhere. If there is a problem then we can make {{unaccredited-eu}} or some such. This template fixes a problem, that there was no consistent form of words, and there were edit wars over what accreditation meant in various articles. The template wording is factually correct. What problem are people trying to solve? Guy (Help!) 09:06, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The user above wanted to insert citations. I said there are too many, and it varies in such areas so it is too specific citations. To be fully accurate there must be around 15-20 citations that I know of, which isn't reasonable for the flow of the articles. Then the user above made this template solely to reflect one region of the world.[20]
I think the template was originally fine (including the spelling). Because, for example, American unaccredited graduates can get in trouble over using the Dr title in the UK too.[21] (Specifically that link is about Clayton College of Natural Health.) I object to the words "US Department of Education" and "states." These diploma mills are a global problem and thus are restricted and subject to laws in many other places. Arbustoo 19:32, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Again, this statement "degrees and credits might not be acceptable to employers or other institutions, and use of degree titles may be restricted or illegal in some jurisdictions" must have a citation in the body of the template. If you feel that you need to add 15-20 citations to make some sort of point, please go ahead. I feel a single citation is enough to establish the statement. - O^O 06:34, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"its country"[edit]

Two problems with this. First, in the United States, the illegality comes about failure to be recognized by a state, not failure to be recognized by the country. Second, we have cases where schools appear to be accredited by "their country", but if that country is (for example) Liberia, other countries choose not to recognize it. - O^O 23:48, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cite a source using a legitimate school. You know nothing about accreditation. That's not how accreditation works. Accreditation means accredited where a school is at. If you want a worldwide list start here to confirm if a foreign school is accredited.
I am reverting your recent change until you provide proof. A suggest you start with reading the article school accreditation. Arbustoo 05:15, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, diploma mills have a long history of claiming to be accredited in Liberia. I suggest you start with reading Saint Regis University and the Liberian statement.
Again, what schools are you speaking of that are accredited in Liberia, but listed as unaccredited? The list of accredited Liberian schools is here for reference. Arbustoo 05:18, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The people claiming to have gotten Liberian accreditation for their diploma mill, i.e., St Regis University, apparently did not really. It appears that they bribed a diplomat in the Liberian emabassy to provide bogus information. They have been charged with a federal crime for this alleged bribe. Although there are other examples where I believe that O^O's assertion are true, e.g., some Carribean nation legislatures have approved some alleged diploma mills. Although I personally believe that the template has value and should stay. TallMagic (talk) 21:46, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed new template[edit]

The use of unaccredited {{{1}}} degree titles may be legally restricted or illegal in some jurisdictions.[2] Jurisdictions that have restricted or made illegal the use of credentials from unaccredited schools include Oregon,[3] [4] Michigan,[5] Maine,[6] North Dakota,[4] New Jersey,[4] Washington,[3] [7] Nevada,[3][8] Illinois,[3] Indiana,[3] and Texas.[9][10] As an example of a law that may restrict {{{1}}} degree use, the use of a degree in Nevada that is based upon more than 10 percent life experience is defined as use of a fake or misleading degree and is subject to a fine up to $5,000 or up to six months in jail or both.[8] Many other states are also considering restrictions on unaccredited degree use in order to help prevent fraud.[11]

  1. ^ http://www.ed.gov/students/prep/college/diplomamills/accreditation.html
  2. ^ Diploma Mills and Accreditation, U.S. Department of Education
  3. ^ a b c d e Unaccredited Colleges, Oregon Office of Degree Authorization
  4. ^ a b c State mulls online learning by the Associated Press, Billings Gazette, January 30, 2005
  5. ^ Colleges and Universities not accredited by CHEA, Michigan Education and Children's Services
  6. ^ Accredited and Non-Accredited Colleges and Universities, Maine’s List of Non-Accredited Post-Secondary Schools
  7. ^ Washington Higher Education Coordinating Board, Washington Consumer Information
  8. ^ a b Use of False or Misleading DegreesNevada statute NRS 394.700
  9. ^ Institutions Whose Degrees are Illegal to Use in Texas, Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board
  10. ^ Two less doctors in the house - Hebert, Wilson back away from Ph.D.'s issued by ‘diploma mills', by Stephen Palkot, Fort Bend Herald, September 28, 2007
  11. ^ Is Oregon the only state that disallows use of unaccredited degrees? Oregon Office of Degree Authorization

TallMagic (talk) 22:00, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is a nice revision, but I would prefer to get rid of the "Unaccredited" template entirely, for several reasons (not necessarily in order of importance):

  1. Contributors who edit articles often don't understand what the template does. One result is that the article sequence is illogical or the same information gets duplicated in other parts of the article. A more serious problematic result is that the template gets used in articles where the information it includes is not relevant.
  2. In stubby articles, even the current template gives undue emphasis to the school's unaccredited status. (Many articles about unaccredited institutions are short.) The proposed new version would make this situation worse, as it is longer than most articles about unaccredited schools.
  3. Some of the information in the proposed template (particularly that about life experience degrees) is not applicable to all unaccredited schools. Unaccredited schools with religious exemptions often are not restricted to the same degree as others, and many unaccredited schools do not offer life experience degrees.

In summary, this is good boilerplate text for possible use in individual articles, but I think that there are problems with making it a template.
--Orlady (talk) 19:33, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's waaaaaaaayyyyyy long. That's what happens with disclosure statements, even not-really-a-disclosure disclosure statements-all the fine print nuance. Besides, just checking a few, I see many of the states listed have exceptions policies, or avenues available for the acceptance of unaccredited degrees in some cases. Oregon, for example, makes exceptions, and has delineated the circumstances where the use is illegal-such as it's illegal to misrepresent it as an accredited degree in licensed or public employment, or to fail to disclose it is an unaccredited degree in private employment (it is legal in Oregon to use them in employment whenever it's disclosed to be a degree from an "unapproved" degreeing institution). Further complicating the issue is the religious exemption to standard accreditation requirement afforded to religious colleges and universities by most states, and how in states like Oregon such exemptions don't have much impact because Oregon public agencies ignore religious degrees anyway, even those from accredited institutions. The template offers a tempting shortcut maybe, but because "unaccredited" does not equal "is illegal in some jurisdictions" the shortcut doesn't get the job done. At best, "unaccredited" simply means "may be illegal somewhere, depending", ie, pretty wishy-washy connection for our purposes. Professor marginalia (talk) 22:08, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Providing lots of information sometimes requires more text. I don't understand your reference to disclosure statements. Requiring the holder of an unaccredited degree to disclose that the degree is unaccredited is still a restriction in the use of the degree. So your assertion that it doesn't apply to Oregon seems to be false. The wording says "may be legally restricted or illegal in some jurisdictions". It's entirely possible that two people with unaccredited degrees from the same school might have one of their degrees be illegal or restricted to use and the other person it might be free to use, even when they both reside in the same legal jurisdiction. This is why the word "may" is used. The purpose of an encyclopedia is to provide information. It may still be required for some people to do further research to get their own specific case/question dispositioned. Providing references might help people do this further research on their own. Calling it wishy-washy because of this does not seem to me to be an argument that the information shouldn't be in Wikipedia? TallMagic (talk) 22:53, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't say whether or not the template "applied" to Oregon, except that there is no simple A=>B equation, even in Oregon, as in the case of "unaccredited means restricted in every case". Even the longer statement is incomplete. If the statement were complete, yes, it would require even more text, leaving it even more impossible to use well. What's wrong with solving this problem the old fashioned way? By sourcing any such claim against an institution and writing copy which is faithful to the source? WP editors aren't supposed to pioneer unique claims in articles, they're supposed to source them with WP:RS. Professor marginalia (talk) 00:19, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what is meant by "pioneer unique claims" in the text above. The above text also seemed to argue again that the proposed statement says that all unaccredited degrees are illegal in all those jurisdictions. That is not the proposed statement. This appears to me to be a proposed statement that is fully supported by the given reliable sources. If there is disagreement then please be more specific. True that it may not be clear to everyone with an unaccredited degree whether or not they themselves will be restricted in the use of their unaccredited degree. That is where additional research may be required on the reader's part. The comments above seem to imply that the proposed text is not faithful to the source. The comments above may also be interpreted to imply that the sources in the proposed text may not be reliable sources. If either is the case then please be more specific. TallMagic (talk) 00:49, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry. I mean as in WP:SYNTH. As it says in WP:SYNTH, "if the sources cited are not directly related to the topic of the article, then the editor is engaged in original research", ie pioneering a claim. This Dept of Ed template is a reference about non-accreditation in general, but not about any particular unaccredited institution. To use a general statement about non-accreditation and bring it to an article about a particular institution to imply some claim about the article's subject is editing practice that is difficult to justify against the WP:NOR policy. We don't typically "suppose" claims in articles, as in "we suppose the degrees of this institution, because it is unaccredited, might be illegal or restricted in some places". Instead of playing footloose with policy, it's important to find sources about the institution itself. To do otherwise, to play the internet detective to try and dig up secondary circumstantial evidence to judge "fly-by-night" educational institutions that no real agency, researcher or reporter has written about anywhere, would be in most all cases original research. Professor marginalia (talk) 01:09, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree that it is original research. It is a statment of fact regarding unaccredited degrees. It makes no claim beyond the information that is explicitly provided in the given sources. There is no synthesis of information that I see. TallMagic (talk) 02:07, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, the template in and of itself doesn't. The manner in which the template has been used to add text to articles is a different story. In general, a very clumsy cookie-cutter that plays the boundaries of WP:SYNTH. Professor marginalia (talk) 05:06, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If I understand correctly, that seems to be more an argument for the proposal to delete the template rather than an argument for or against the proposed enhancement to the template. Perhaps that is more what you've been arguing all along? I would rather keep that a separate argument. TallMagic (talk) 06:52, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template_talk:Unaccredited&oldid=1138906809"