DL Truth: Distance Learning Truth

At present, it is perfectly legal to operate a diploma mill. It is perfectly legal to outright sell someone a credential from your institution. There are no legal bans against such a practice.

Do you know why? It's not because it's hard to define what's meant by "diploma mill". It's because idiots at the CHEA are also trying to include substandard and alternative schools into the definition of "diploma mill". And the federal government isn't ever going to ban something which may just be substandard or subjective. Thus, diploma mills are allowed to operate.

When George Gollin, Allen Ezell, and the CHEA use the phrase "little or no" instead of just saying "sells degrees," they are telling us that they want degree sellers to exist. They want businesses which sell credentials. It's not because "people want them," it's because they want them. They're the unethical ones here. They know very well when they include substandards and alternative schools into the definition, "diploma mills" will never be banned or hunted down.

When the United States Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs puts up Kennedy Western as an example of a "diploma mill," and show us interviews and testimonials of people who claim to have done substantial work for their degree, it just leaves one to scratch their head on what a diploma mill is. People begin to jump in and defend their institution.

If anyone truly cared about banning the sale of credentials, a ban could be put in easily. A law could easily be written up banning the sale of credentials. With such a law, authorities could go after places which sell degrees, even if they're located abroad, as they already do with drug trafficking.

But due to someone's unsuccessful attempt to knockout the competition, out and out diploma mills continue to exist and operate legally. No crackdown will ever take place. By including substandard and alternative schools into the definition of "diploma mill," they are telling us that they would like the worldwide sale of credentials to continue.

People like George Gollin and the CHEA are to blame for not creating appropriate definitions for the government to ban and outlaw. Thus, buying a PHD is, has, and always will be, perfectly legal. I can count dozens of degree selling diploma mills operating on the internet which have operated for at least ten years straight with impunity.

Truly, college degrees are things to be bought and sold, here and forever, all thanks to the CHEA.

diploma mills are like Chinese Prada...it isn't going to go away only because it hurts someone's interests...and buyers get a Prada bag at 1/100 the price...only experts could tell the difference anyways

RespectableGent Wrote:At present, it is perfectly legal to operate a diploma mill. It is perfectly legal to outright sell someone a credential from your institution. There are no legal bans against such a practice.

This is incorrect. Regulation of higher learning institutions is left to the individual states. There are none that fail completely to regulate against diploma mills. There are a few that are considerably more lax than the rest. But "legal" bans are in place almost universally.

Quote:Do you know why? It's not because it's hard to define what's meant by "diploma mill".

This isn't true, either. Many states have very clear definitions about what is and is not a diploma mill. Others choose to prosecute people for operating diploma mills under other statutes as well. This happened to the Randocks, Ernest Sinclair, Ron Pellar, Anthony Geruntino, and many others.

Quote:It's because idiots at the CHEA are also trying to include substandard and alternative schools into the definition of "diploma mill".

Again, not true. There is no effort by CHEA to do this. Several of the states have done this, however.

Quote:And the federal government isn't ever going to ban something which may just be substandard or subjective. Thus, diploma mills are allowed to operate.

This is mistaken. The federal government isn't going to ban diploma mills because it isn't within their scope to do so. That is left to the states. To the extent diploma mills are allowed to operate, it is precisely due to lax regulation by whatever states in which they operate.

Quote:When George Gollin, Allen Ezell, and the CHEA use the phrase "little or no" instead of just saying "sells degrees," they are telling us that they want degree sellers to exist. They want businesses which sell credentials. It's not because "people want them," it's because they want them. They're the unethical ones here. They know very well when they include substandards and alternative schools into the definition, "diploma mills" will never be banned or hunted down.

Interesting technique to ascribe to the people against the phenomenon the motivation to make it succeed. But misguided (or worse). The poster, of course, fails to (a) describe the purported motives for this alleged scheme and (b) offer examples or other evidence.

Quote:When the United States Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs puts up Kennedy Western as an example of a "diploma mill," and show us interviews and testimonials of people who claim to have done substantial work for their degree, it just leaves one to scratch their head on what a diploma mill is. People begin to jump in and defend their institution.

Except that's not what happened. After getting outed and slammed, the operators of K-WU changed the name of the institution, increased academic rigor, dropped programs, and applied for accreditation. When they failed, they closed it down. No one "defended" K-WU as constructed, except its "graduates," of course, who had a stake in the matter.

Quote:If anyone truly cared about banning the sale of credentials, a ban could be put in easily. A law could easily be written up banning the sale of credentials. With such a law, authorities could go after places which sell degrees, even if they're located abroad, as they already do with drug trafficking.

Again, such a thing is not within the domain of the federal government, but many of the states have done just that. Also, many people have been prosecuted under federal law for selling fake degrees from fake schools. I listed a few, but there are many others.

Quote:

But due to someone's unsuccessful attempt to knockout the competition, out and out diploma mills continue to exist and operate legally.

Examples? Who did this?

Quote:No crackdown will ever take place. By including substandard and alternative schools into the definition of "diploma mill," they are telling us that they would like the worldwide sale of credentials to continue.

This is a repeat of earlier, unsubstantiated claims.

Quote:People like George Gollin and the CHEA are to blame for not creating appropriate definitions for the government to ban and outlaw. Thus, buying a PHD is, has, and always will be, perfectly legal.

It is not. And to ascribe the responsibility--providing legal definitions to the government--to private organizations and individuals is a mistake. While the government might choose to go to private organizations--for example, it looks to the accreditors it approves to determine what is and is not a sufficient college or university--the onus is most certainly not on the private organization to dictate these terms to the government.

Quote:I can count dozens of degree selling diploma mills operating on the internet which have operated for at least ten years straight with impunity.

Yes, and the government controls who does what on the "world wide" web? Bad example.

Quote:Truly, college degrees are things to be bought and sold, here and forever, all thanks to the CHEA.

This is, sadly, a case of broken logic---a conclusion in search of an explanation, creating one where it does not exist naturally.

Quote:This isn't true, either. Many states have very clear definitions about what is and is not a diploma mill. Others choose to prosecute people for operating diploma mills under other statutes as well. This happened to the Randocks, Ernest Sinclair, Ron Pellar, Anthony Geruntino, and many others.

Most diploma mill operators were prosecuted on grounds of tax evasion or making materially false claims in their literature. Please read John Bear's book on the subject of how they were prosecuted. The quality of their education was never even brought up.

None were prosecuted for awarding degrees on life experience, substandard work, or whatever. There are absolutely no laws which outline what a college can and cannot do. There are no shared standards between colleges and universities.

Quote:Again, not true. There is no effort by CHEA to do this. Several of the states have done this, however.

Actually the CHEA does try to continuously "warn the public about degree mills." The accreditation cartel has already created federal statutes to ban unaccredited schools from receiving federal funds.

Are they worried about Belford University receiving federal funds? No. Belford doesn't need a federal loan for the few hundred dollars they charge for a degree. They're trying to knock out the competition and drive competitors like Kennedy Western out of business.

They are trying to knock out start ups, substandards, and alternative schools. Schools which do provide coursework, do require learning, and charge thousands of dollars. Schools who need to secure loans for their students. It has nothing to do with combating diploma sellers. It is purely about stomping out the competition.

Quote:This is mistaken. The federal government isn't going to ban diploma mills because it isn't within their scope to do so. That is left to the states. To the extent diploma mills are allowed to operate, it is precisely due to lax regulation by whatever states in which they operate.

Actually congress and the federal government does reserve the right to control education, and make laws regarding education.

However, they choose not to do this and leave it to the states to decide.

Quote:Interesting technique to ascribe to the people against the phenomenon the motivation to make it succeed. But misguided (or worse). The poster, of course, fails to (a) describe the purported motives for this alleged scheme and (b) offer examples or other evidence.

It would be extremely easy to stamp out degree sellers. But that's not what they want. They define any "substandard college" as a "diploma mill" and proceed to write weepy cry articles about how fake doctors are murdering children to encourage support for whatever anti-diploma mill bill they want to pass.

Have you seen George Gollin's rants? He goes to great lengths to put "fake university" and "diploma mill" in the same sentence.

He neglects to mention that very extensive licensing examinations are already required to legally practice medicine. One cannot practice medicine legally without a license, whether your MD is from Harvard or from Hank's Medical Garage.

He also neglects to mention that there are regionally accredited colleges which award degrees for under three hours of coursework.

Quote:Except that's not what happened. After getting outed and slammed, the operators of K-WU changed the name of the institution, increased academic rigor, dropped programs, and applied for accreditation. When they failed, they closed it down. No one "defended" K-WU as constructed, except its "graduates," of course, who had a stake in the matter.

Many of the graduates claim to have done extensive coursework for Kennedy Western. Dissertations were written, and each course had substantive instruction. Kennedy Western was clearly running a school, not selling degrees.

Whoever put Kennedy Western up on a pedestal as a "good example of a diploma mill" was clearly a CHEA shill trying to knock out the competition by placing competitors in the same boat as degree selling diploma mills, to be legislated out of existence.

Quote:Again, such a thing is not within the domain of the federal government, but many of the states have done just that. Also, many people have been prosecuted under federal law for selling fake degrees from fake schools. I listed a few, but there are many others.

I'm sorry, where's the federal law which states that one cannot sell a fake degree from a fake school?

Diploma Mills were legal to operate last I checked. None of those people were prosecuted for "selling fake degrees". They were prosecuted on grounds of tax evasion and material lies in their literature.

Quote:Examples? Who did this?

The CHEA does it. They are trying to knock out the competition and could care less about degree selling diploma mills. I don't hear rants about Instant Degrees. All I hear about are lame meaningless rants about California Coast and Kennedy Western diploma mills.

Quote:This is a repeat of earlier, unsubstantiated claims.

Do you see the federal government cracking down on diploma mills of any variety? I don't.

Quote:It is not.

Really, where's the law which states what one cannot accept an unearned degree, or that one cannot have a degree awarded based on one's life experience?

Quote:And to ascribe the responsibility--providing legal definitions to the government--to private organizations and individuals is a mistake.

No, it is not a mistake to ban degree selling diploma mills. If anyone really wanted a ban on degree selling diploma mills it could be done.

But that's not what the CHEA wants. They want their competitors gone.

It's as clear as day. No doubt about it.

Quote:While the government might choose to go to private organizations--for example, it looks to the accreditors it approves to determine what is and is not a sufficient college or university--the onus is most certainly not on the private organization to dictate these terms to the government.

Quality of a school is subjective.

Degree selling diploma mills are not. No one likes degree selling diploma mills. But due to the CHEA trying to knock out the competition, trying to define their competitors as diploma mills, no legislation against the operation of a diploma mill can succeed.

Diploma mills exist because of the cutthroat tactics of the wealthy higher education cartel.

Quote:Yes, and the government controls who does what on the "world wide" web? Bad example.

Actually, the government does control what occurs on the internet. Do you think that they would allow WikiLeaks to leak classified Department of Defense information, allow american ISP's to host classified material, or allow Google to index classified information?

The government reserves the right to restrict privacy on the internet when it comes to matters of national security.

And if diploma mills were truly a matter of national security, they could easily be stamped out. But they cannot be stamped out, because running a diploma mill is perfectly legal. They are legal only because of the CHEA's unsuccessful cutthroat tactics.

Quote:This is, sadly, a case of broken logic---a conclusion in search of an explanation, creating one where it does not exist naturally

As far as the CHEA is concerned there is no difference between a substandard college and a diploma mill.

One could make a difference between the two in terms of federal definitions. It's very easy. Substandard schools are "Substandards," providing a substandard education, Alternative schools are "Alternatives," providing a non-traditional education, and degree-selling diploma mills are "Diploma Mills".

See that? It's extremely easy to decide which ones should be outlawed and prosecuted. But that's not what they want. They could care less about degree sellers. The true and only agenda is to stomp out the competition, prevent startups from competing with their business, and prevent alternative schools from existing.

RespectableGent Wrote:Most diploma mill operators were prosecuted on grounds of tax evasion or making materially false claims in their literature. Please read John Bear's book on the subject of how they were prosecuted. The quality of their education was never even brought up.

This isn't true. No one was convicted of "tax evasion." In almost every case, their prosecutions were a direct result of selling fake degrees. This is a material falsehood, with no basis in fact. Anyone who wants to look at the prosecutions can see that.

Quote:None were prosecuted for awarding degrees on life experience, substandard work, or whatever. There are absolutely no laws which outline what a college can and cannot do. There are no shared standards between colleges and universities.

False. In almost every case, the schools and their operators were shut down because they didn't meet licensing requirements. Some, like Sinclair, were prosecuted for related crimes--but that was because the federal government doesn't have jurisdiction over operating a university.

Quote:Actually the CHEA does try to continuously "warn the public about degree mills." The accreditation cartel has already created federal statutes to ban unaccredited schools from receiving federal funds.

Which statutes? And how does the restriction of Title IV funds to students attending accredited schools enter into this? Doesn't the government have to set some standard? What is wrong with choosing accreditation? What other available standard is there?

Quote:Are they worried about Belford University receiving federal funds? No. Belford doesn't need a federal loan for the few hundred dollars they charge for a degree. They're trying to knock out the competition and drive competitors like Kennedy Western out of business.

This doesn't make sense. Are you really saying that the federal government seeks to drive out competition? For whom? Kennedy-Western (note the true spelling) eventually tried to become accredited and failed. So it was inside the system, not outside. How can people both (a) criticise the efficacy of accreditation while simultaneously (b) decrying it as being too restrictive? This doesn't make sense.

Quote:They are trying to knock out start ups, substandards, and alternative schools. Schools which do provide coursework, do require learning, and charge thousands of dollars. Schools who need to secure loans for their students. It has nothing to do with combating diploma sellers. It is purely about stomping out the competition.

No. You haven't establish who is competing against whom. And your repeated support of "substandard" schools is telling, no?

Quote:It would be extremely easy to stamp out degree sellers. But that's not what they want. They define any "substandard college" as a "diploma mill" and proceed to write weepy cry articles about how fake doctors are murdering children to encourage support for whatever anti-diploma mill bill they want to pass.

Who are "they"? It, again, sounds like you're mad at the oppression of "substandard" schools. But isn't that a good thing? Shouldn't "substandard" schools be prevented from operating? This has nothing to do with competition. Rather, isn't it about consumer protection?

Quote:Have you seen George Gollin's rants? He goes to great lengths to put "fake university" and "diploma mill" in the same sentence.

But they're the same. I'd like to hear the difference explained.

Quote:He neglects to mention that very extensive licensing examinations are already required to legally practice medicine. One cannot practice medicine legally without a license, whether your MD is from Harvard or from Hank's Medical Garage.

This is a red herring. Licensure is not at issue here. Selling fake degrees and substandard schools (your term) are.

Quote:He also neglects to mention that there are regionally accredited colleges which award degrees for under three hours of coursework.

You confuse inputs (hours) with outputs (knowledge demonstrated). A common error, certainly. Especially among those who do not understand higher education.

Quote:Many of the graduates claim to have done extensive coursework for Kennedy Western. Dissertations were written, and each course had substantive instruction. Kennedy Western was clearly running a school, not selling degrees.

This is subject to interpretation. As John Bear put it, one person's diploma mill is another's alternative school. (You should read his books instead of exhorting others to do so.) But the entire educational community, domestic and international, reject K-WU as a university. That's just the way it is. Decry this all you want, it won't change.

Quote:Whoever put Kennedy Western up on a pedestal as a "good example of a diploma mill" was clearly a CHEA shill trying to knock out the competition by placing competitors in the same boat as degree selling diploma mills, to be legislated out of existence.

Who is this? And let's stipulate that Kennedy-Western was offering instruction towards their degrees. How does this differ from Hamilton awarding doctoral degrees on the basis of a dissertation of less than 10 pages? Hamilton and K-WU had the exact same legal recognition. Is one a diploma mill while the other an alternative university? The absolute fact remains that both failed to meet any semblance of standard regarding what is and is not a university, and both are out of business.

Quote:I'm sorry, where's the federal law which states that one cannot sell a fake degree from a fake school?

Answered already. The federal government doesn't legislate in this area. But the states do, and they do so very aggressively. So what's your point?

Quote:Diploma Mills were legal to operate last I checked. None of those people were prosecuted for "selling fake degrees". They were prosecuted on grounds of tax evasion and material lies in their literature.

No. The people I cited above all went to prison for selling fake degrees. You are flat wrong.

Quote:The CHEA does it. They are trying to knock out the competition and could care less about degree selling diploma mills. I don't hear rants about Instant Degrees. All I hear about are lame meaningless rants about California Coast and Kennedy Western diploma mills.

Competition from whom? CHEA is a non-profit organization. What possible benefit could they derive from preventing certain schools from becoming accredited? Also, this ignores the multitude of alternative universities that have been successful in achieving accreditation. You fail to describe a class of schools that are excluded. In fact, you list a school (CCU) that has CHEA-recognized accreditation. The other school you cite, K-WU, applied for it unsuccessfully.

Quote:

Do you see the federal government cracking down on diploma mills of any variety? I don't.

Then you're not looking. You've never heard of Dipscam? Didn't you know about the federal government's pursuit of St. Regis, Hamilton, and others?

Quote:Really, where's the law which states what one cannot accept an unearned degree, or that one cannot have a degree awarded based on one's life experience?

This is fuzzy. There are accredited schools that award unearned honorary degrees. And there are schools that award credit for lifelong learning (not "life experience").

Quote:No, it is not a mistake to ban degree selling diploma mills. If anyone really wanted a ban on degree selling diploma mills it could be done.

And it is being done across the nation, even if you're conveniently ignoring it.

Quote:But that's not what the CHEA wants. They want their competitors gone.

Described above. What competitors? What class of schools is CHEA excluding? Any school you claim to be excluded by CHEA's accreditors can be matched with another that is properly accredited.

Quote:It's as clear as day. No doubt about it.

This is an assessment, but it is without support.

Sorry, but the rest of your post is redundant, so I choose not to repeatedly shoot down the same points.

RespectableGent: do you really mean what you are writing, or are you just having fun by writing strong statements that you know aren't really true? I think you are having a good time at our expense, and really DO know that there are laws about diploma mills.

Whether the laws are good or not is a different subject.

There is no doubt certain schools benefit from special treatment, much as individuals do.
It's like when the bunch of perverts, frauds, millists and their ilk at DD/DI keep discussing a degree mill and debating seemingly fine points of doctrine again and again under the cover of 'exposing' it...that's a fraudulent infomercial for the school being discussed. Remember ESRDS? They kept on discussing moot points in spite of the fact that admittedly they knew no French and had no clue about how France differs from Alabama. What is that, according to you? Oh, yes...Diderot and Grimm exchanging lists of pornographic books & book stores under the cover of criticizing them. Wasn't John Bear's first guide a directory of mills complete with addresses? To 'expose' them, of course...

Quote:This isn't true. No one was convicted of "tax evasion." In almost every case, their prosecutions were a direct result of selling fake degrees. This is a material falsehood, with no basis in fact. Anyone who wants to look at the prosecutions can see that.

Why don't you look at the prosecutions yourself? James Kirk and Rudy Marn were put away for tax evasion. "Phony degrees" had nothing to do with it. The operation of a diploma mill is not a crime.

Show us the federal statues which indicate that it is a crime to operate a diploma mill.

Quote:False. In almost every case, the schools and their operators were shut down because they didn't meet licensing requirements. Some, like Sinclair, were prosecuted for related crimes--but that was because the federal government doesn't have jurisdiction over operating a university.

In most states it's merely a civil offense to operate a university without state authority. It's not a criminal offense. When Hawaii started prosecuting unauthorized schools all they could ever do is fine them to scare them away.

Hawaii was unable to raid or arrest anyone as it was not a criminal offense.

Quote:Which statutes? And how does the restriction of Title IV funds to students attending accredited schools enter into this? Doesn't the government have to set some standard? What is wrong with choosing accreditation? What other available standard is there?

At present only schools with recognized accreditation are able to receive federal loans.

There are literally thousands of of vocational and career schools which are shut out from acquiring federal loans for their students because they are not accredited, or are accredited by specialized but unrecognized accreditors.

Larger universities conspire at high levels to shut out career and alternative schools from competing with them.

Quote:This doesn't make sense. Are you really saying that the federal government seeks to drive out competition? For whom?

Public schools are owned and operated by the state. For example, the millions of dollars brought in by Excelsior College go directly to the state coffers, and thus it's "good".

If some private entity tried to start up a similar non-traditional school it's "bad," labeled a "diploma mill" and are pressured out of operation.

Quote:No. You haven't establish who is competing against whom. And your repeated support of "substandard" schools is telling, no?

Have you ever heard of a career or vocational school?

Career and Vocational schools are substandard, with curriculas built solely around a single profession. Students are not required to go through a substantial general ed requirement, but mainly take a series of courses solely focused around their profession. Business students take business related courses over a period and can graduate is a short amount of time.

Quote:Who are "they"? It, again, sounds like you're mad at the oppression of "substandard" schools. But isn't that a good thing? Shouldn't "substandard" schools be prevented from operating? This has nothing to do with competition. Rather, isn't it about consumer protection?

Um, no.

Substandard schools are not necessarily bad. I personally recommend to friends and family members to attend a Career or Vocational school for their degree rather than enrolling into a traditional school.

If one's only purpose is to become an Administrative Assistant the career school will put the student through a rapid series of courses in Microsoft Office, Quickbooks, and Business.

If one's purpose is to become a graphics designer, there are specialized art schools which teach graphic design and only graphic design.

Enrolling into a traditional public school, on the other hand, requires the student to take a substantial course load in addition to their major. Students must take many courses unrelated to their interest.

Why should English majors be forced to take Math classes? Why should an Artist be forced to take courses in Biology?

The higher education cartel does not like the fact that there are smaller specialized schools which allow a student to graduate in a shorter amount of time, and for less money. They go to great lengths in their attempt to put them out of business. They attempt to use the diploma mill "issue" to deny their access to loans, and to drive them out of business.

Bellona Wrote:RespectableGent: do you really mean what you are writing, or are you just having fun by writing strong statements that you know aren't really true? I think you are having a good time at our expense, and really DO know that there are laws about diploma mills.

Whether the laws are good or not is a different subject.

What laws?

There aren't any laws which make the operation of a diploma mill a crime.

RespectableGent Wrote:Diploma mills exist because of the cutthroat tactics of the wealthy higher education cartel.

...The true and only agenda is to stomp out the competition, prevent startups from competing with their business, and prevent alternative schools from existing.

Well said, RespectableGent.  Here is what Glen S. McGhee of the Florida Higher Education Accountability Project said at IHE back on January 29, 2010, with reference to proposed "diploma mill" legislation.  

Quote:Like a Bad Penny that keeps coming back ....
Posted by Glen S. McGhee , Dir., at Florida Higher Education Accountability Project on January 29, 2010 at 11:00am EST

Like a bad penny, this flawed legislative proposal keeps coming back.

We have seen this all before, when the the so-called Diploma Mill Prevention Act was unveiled with much fanfare, but was wisely never included in the reauthorized HEA.

Nearly all provisions of the reauthorized Higher Education Act that focused on problems associated with so-called 'diploma mills' were stripped from the final version of the bill. The original content was carried by House Resolution 773, the “Diploma Integrity Protection Act of 2007″ submitted by Congresswoman Betty McCollum (MN 04) to the 110th Congress, and HR 6008 before that in 2006.

Most, if not all, of the problems with 'diploma mills' stem from the fact that there are no minimum standards for colleges and universities in the US. There are no minimum standards, and the gatekeeping mechanisms for higher education in this country are like a picket fence gate with a broken hinge that is stuck in the open position.

'Diploma mill' measures fundamentally misunderstand the history and nature of accreditation processes in the US. It is not the US Department of Education, but the regional, national and specialized accreditors that accredit postsecondary institutions. None of these proposals challenge this government-sponsored monopoly, but rather only strengthen it.

Once again the accreditors have gotten the US Congress to carry water for them, this time by strengthening their government protected monopoly -- rather than reform the 100 year old system of higher ed self-regulation that is now in place.

As for listing currently accredited institutions, this will prove to be a major headache for the Department of Education. Accreditors varying in their assessments of institutions, especially when it comes to branch campuses. Such confusion will only grow once this bill is implemented.

Even more important are the underlying problems with the Diploma Mill construct -- diploma mills are what the accrediting guilds say they are. Ongoing quality problems with dual enrollment, on-line classes, and underqualifed TAs and adjuncts, and out-of-field teaching, make it clear that even accredited institutions can sometimes fall below the level of diploma mills.

http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2010/01/29/mills

Some people like the idea of a government-sponsored monopoly.  It spares them the difficult process of making their own decisions.

And if there are no standards, but the government or some wealthy cartel says it's good, then it must be good.  No need to worry about something you don't understand anyway.  Believe and trust your dear leaders, for they know what's best for you.