(02-10-2012, 07:39 AM)jamesc1 Wrote: Unaccredited schools existed at all levels, from barely legal to pretty good. Were any of them Harvard? Hardly. But they were good enough for many purposes. It was up to us as adults to make the good choices. If we didn't, well, we took the risks. As one infamous expert told us, if it was legal- required work- had a decent reputation, it was acceptable.
So you looked through the Bear guide. Listened to the man's advice, sent off for the catalogs, and made your choice.
Here is the way it was back then. People picked good and bad schools according to their needs and wants. I have no problem with discussions about how good the choices were between the schools. I have a big problem with the idea that all such choices were bad or worse, mills. You can't have a discussion if you start from the point that says they were mills or useless. The degrees were of value to many people, myself included. That the former supporters of such schools now run from their previous statements doesn't make the choices any different.
Some of these schools were legitimate attempts to provide adults with college degrees. Others were mills or just a little better than that. They were not all the same nor were they all useless. They deserve to be treated each to its own works.
Some were good, some were average, and some were BAD. Just like apple pies. Not all are tasty.
California is a great example of this. Until 1989, many unaccredited schools thrived there. Which were mills and which were legitimate? I think it is safe to say that those that met the Approved requirements under 94310(b) were pretty good, many of which went on to accreditation. But the 94310© Authorized category was a real mixed bag.
While it is certainly unfair to characterize all unaccredited schools as mills, it is certainly fair to point out the extreme differences in acceptance of those schools' degrees in the workplace and in higher education. (Of course variations exist among the different categories of accredited schools. Degrees from schools accredited by DETC are markedly less acceptable compared to those from RA schools.)
James is right--look more closely than just the accreditation status.
(02-24-2012, 05:27 PM)Virtual Bison Wrote: One thing I learned from this board is that there are a lot of bogus schools selling bogus degrees which wear that cloak of accreditation. There are also a few fairly decent schools which did not get accredited. And its really all based on Politics. A few god-like assholes with little actual knowledge and a lot of unearned power get themselves in very high position and they can pick and choose which school is legit and what is not.
Which are the bogus accredited schools and why?
Which good, unaccredited schools were denied accreditation because of politics?
Yes, I'm sure politics can enter into the accreditation question. But so can the academic validity of the school in question, its finances, etc. It's complicated.
