In Defense of Unaccredited Universities and Colleges

[Virtual Bison]

And no, I am not talking in defense of diploma mills here.

Why not? First, with regard to "diploma mills," who cares if people sell fake degrees? If the buyer knows it's fake then he's getting what he paid for, so who is harmed? But if a buyer is willing to pay good money for a "worthless" piece of paper, then obviously the paper is not worthless at all. What then creates the value? The buyer thinks he can fool ignorant people into believing it represents actual academic achievement. He's counting on nobody checking, or not checking in more than a perfunctory manner.

If it's really all that important that your employees or contractors have "real" degrees, shouldn't you then undertake the relatively modest effort required to verify the degree before hiring them? If you don't, who is to blame?

The reason you see so many public sector employees taking heat is because so many public sector administrators are fucking incompetent. They blame it on the union, but who negotiated the union contract?

The typical sophist argument is that we can't have engineers and doctors running around building bridges and treating patients with fake degrees. But engineers and doctors are licensed. In fact engineers and doctors with real degrees can't run around doing such things either--unless they meet strict licensing requirements, which invariably include, among other things, having verified degrees.

Second, accredited colleges have no trademark or other exclusive right to use the term "degree." A "degree" can be anything anyone decides it to be. If somebody wants to award people "degrees" for life experience, who cares? As long as the buyer knows his "degree" has no academic significance, who is harmed?

Turning then to "accreditation," many uninformed people assume that the term equates to some sort of quality standard or objective measure of learning. In fact it currently means no such thing, unless you equate the ethereal "standards" articulated in the accreditors' self-serving public pronouncements with anything of substance.

You can't describe an unaccredited school as "substandard" when the accredited schools have no real, quantifiable academic standards against which they are measured. Accreditation is just a qualifier for government subsidies and a nose ring for school admins to be led around by the government to insure that curricula meet the perverted socialist dogma requirements.

So if a vendor sells a very expensive "accredited" degree that he represents (with a straight face) has some value, but which in fact represents nothing measurable and in the current economy isn't even likely to land the holder gainful employment, who is the bigger fraud? At least the milled degree buyer knows he's getting hot air, and at pennies on the dollar.

In fact the accreditation scam is in the nature of a "cartel" or as Dr. Glen S. McGhee describes it, a "guild." The vendors organize to limit competition and keep prices high. The government is both a member (by extracting tax money to finance government schools) and an enforcer (by prosecuting competitors for trumped up "crimes").

Accreditation is essentially the "buy in" to be allowed to play the game. Have a spare ten million bucks, ten years and willing to risk it on 50-50 odds? You're in! Are people playing the game who didn't buy in? Diploma mills!!! Go directly to jail!!!!

Even innovators among the cartel who break the rules (e.g., UoPhx) are threatened by the cartel and its enforcers. Year 'round classes instead of weeks and months off for vacations? Classrooms near the freeway where students can actually reach them after work, instead of back up in the woods among the evergreens? "We've got to do something about those dastardly for-profits!"

If and when accreditation becomes an objective measure of the quality and quantity of education provided, then I'll salute. Until then, only with the middle digit.

Some good points.

I qualified that statement because I believe that rather than encouraging schools to merely "sell" degrees for nothing other than money, it might be better to re-examine qualifications for professional liscenses. For instance, why is it that only California allows someone without a JD to take the Bar Exam? Did you know that in many states, Vermont for instance you do not need a degree in Engineering to take the PE Exam?

I believe in decriminalizing these so called "diploma mills," yes. Because if someone wants to pay for a degree that was not earned than thats their business. And if an employer is too lazy not to set standards than that is their problem.

But for the purpose of my argument I was referring to the whole accreditation mafia and how they are surpressing individual freedoms.

The basic problem is that the same rhetoric deployed to defend real schools is deployed splitting hairs in order to make degree mills seem legitimate.

Which is why employers and professional organizations need to be vigilant in their hiring or approval practices. I happen to think that use of examinations to screen candidates is a good idea. And lets face it, any bozo can claim a college education and make up their credentials. Suppose I told you I graduated from the U or Timbuctu and showed you a diploma. Would you hire me without checking references or maybe asking me to do some basic tasks that the job would require?

I happen to work in the field of IT and no employer will hire someone just because they show off some sheepskin. What is more important to the people in my field is how current I am and what do I really know.

re: BROWN TEAL

This article states makes a hell of a lot of sense. Just one sentence made me laugh:

The American writer on distance education John Bear has written, “I have been suggesting for years that in a rational world, any degree would be evaluated based only on the work done to earn it, and the credentials of the person or people who approve and stand behind it.”4